Stacy Ann Peterson, Bolingbrook IL #12

[DeltaDawn]

In a criminal trial, it's not supposed to matter what people (jurors who took an oath) think, feel, hope, believe, suspect or what their gut or tea leaves tells them. What is supposed to matter is whether prosecutors are able to present evidence that proves the charge or charges beyond a reasonable doubt.

You are right Wudge..it is supposed to be beyond a reasonable doubt.

So far the little we know does point to beyond a reasonable doubt..not eyewitness testimony, not an accomplice coming forward..but beyond reasonable doubt..yes. I have no reason to believe that Stacy ran off and Kathleen fell in the tub..that opinion is unreasonable given the fact we now know that the cororner at the time had problems believing this was an accident, the fact Stacy felt that Drew might murder her ( requesting that her sister know this if she suddenly went missing, her family and friends all knew she feared him.) Then we have Kathleen who even wrote a letter to the Attorney General requesting help in fear of her life and made the statement that Drew said he could kill her and make it look like an accident, then we have the 2nd wife saying Drew told her the same thing and her daughter as witness to the fact, plus her physical abuse by him. It may sound like hearsay..but it sounds like 3 wives..two of which are dead, all describing their relationship with their husband the same way..brutal. Most normal people would find that he is guilty..all the LE need now is some small piece of evidence to back that up.

Reasonable doubt also includes statistics..in this case what are the chances that a man with 4 wives, has three of them claiming abuse, that he tells them that he could kill them and make it look like an accident, that they have voiced that phrase to family and friends previous to any of these events and then suddenly one wife is dead ( who he claimed had heart conditions which the autopsy proved was not true) and the other is missing under circumstances even LE thinks believe foul play and not his story of the run away wife? Statistics claim the odds are very slim for that happening. LE has better evidence then that..I feel that beyond a reasonable doubt is already a sure thing in this case.

 

[Wudge]

In a criminal trial, it's not supposed to matter what people (jurors who took an oath) think, feel, hope, believe, suspect or what their gut or tea leaves tells them. What is supposed to matter is whether prosecutors are able to present evidence that proves the charge or charges beyond a reasonable doubt.

You are right Wudge..it is supposed to be beyond a reasonable doubt.

So far the little we know does point to beyond a reasonable doubt..not eyewitness testimony, not an accomplice coming forward..but beyond reasonable doubt..yes. I have no reason to believe that Stacy ran off and Kathleen fell in the tub..that opinion is unreasonable given the fact we now know that the cororner at the time had problems believing this was an accident, the fact Stacy felt that Drew might murder her ( requesting that her sister know this if she suddenly went missing, her family and friends all knew she feared him.) Then we have Kathleen who even wrote a letter to the Attorney General requesting help in fear of her life and made the statement that Drew said he could kill her and make it look like an accident, then we have the 2nd wife saying Drew told her the same thing and her daughter as witness to the fact, plus her physical abuse by him. It may sound like hearsay..but it sounds like 3 wives..two of which are dead, all describing their relationship with their husband the same way..brutal. Most normal people would find that he is guilty..all the LE need now is some small piece of evidence to back that up.

Reasonable doubt also includes statistics..in this case what are the chances that a man with 4 wives, has three of them claiming abuse, that he tells them that he could kill them and make it look like an accident, that they have voiced that phrase to family and friends previous to any of these events and then suddenly one wife is dead ( who he claimed had heart conditions which the autopsy proved was not true) and the other is missing under circumstances even LE thinks believe foul play and not his story of the run away wife? Statistics claim the odds are very slim for that happening. LE has better evidence then that..I feel that beyond a reasonable doubt is already a sure thing in this case.

You would find Drew guilty of murder one based on what you know?

 

[boody]

Um. I would.

 

[TKS2003]

You would find Drew guilty of murder one based on what you know?

What difference does it make---DeltaDawn, are you on the grand jury???
I swear Wudge, you test my ability to remain quiet, and let everyone exercise their right to free speech.....
And YES, I would convict him....but no worries, not a chance I would be in the jury pool.
I realize you enjoy pulling peoples strings Wudge, and I really dont like myself for responding to your post, makes me feel all "scott peterson-y" again....and if it needs to be said, this is JUST MY OPINION...

 

[Pharlap]

What difference does it make---DeltaDawn, are you on the grand jury???
I swear Wudge, you test my ability to remain quiet, and let everyone exercise their right to free speech.....
And YES, I would convict him....but no worries, not a chance I would be in the jury pool.
I realize you enjoy pulling peoples strings Wudge, and I really dont like myself for responding to your post, makes me feel all "scott peterson-y" again....and if it needs to be said, this is JUST MY OPINION...

You go girl.......:woohoo:

 

[DeltaDawn]

I would find Drew quilty of murder one based on what we know so far..his track record..and what is to come..solid evidence that LE is working on acquiring through phone records , DNA, fingerprints, the GJ , and other avenues. Drew isn't perfect, he made some mistakes and LE just has to pinpoint those mistakes to get the physical evidence they need. I think that the evidence will back up the fact that Drew is infact a wife murderer.

I would not go just on what we know, if I didn't feel that solid evidence was mounting against him. His demeanor and actions suggest he knows that too. If what is known now to LE was not enough to even guess this may be true they would not be persuing this so zealously as they are..they have somethings that we don't know about..they have played this very close to the chest. So much so that even Brodsky is constantly acting the fool to try to get a reaction from them on what they have and what he suspects they have..they haven't taken the bait.

Also, the GJ doesn't decide anything on this other then if there is enough evidence to go to trial..and yes..if I heard all this that has been leaked, plus what these people on the GJ are hearing that we aren't privy to, then you bet I would send old Drew to trial for murder one..no doubt about that.

 

[TKS2003]

You go girl.......:woohoo:

thanks Pharlap!
I realize that I dont have many posts to my name(usually because someone says what I want to say before I can type it!!), but I have been here almost daily for years, ever since Laci P disappeared, and I am having severe flashbacks, and feel like I want to throw my computer out the window, lol....
I love websleuths, I love reading what all you smart people have to say about cases I am interested in, but sometimes my patience wears thin.....

 

[Wudge]

What difference does it make---DeltaDawn, are you on the grand jury???
I swear Wudge, you test my ability to remain quiet, and let everyone exercise their right to free speech.....
And YES, I would convict him....but no worries, not a chance I would be in the jury pool.
I realize you enjoy pulling peoples strings Wudge, and I really dont like myself for responding to your post, makes me feel all "scott peterson-y" again....and if it needs to be said, this is JUST MY OPINION...

In Salem, 1692, due process also differed.

 

[DeltaDawn]

Wudge...aren't we talking due process here ...a GJ and then if the Gj finds there is reason to arrest and then go to trial. We're just at the GJ stage, no burnings or hangings, or drownings going on here. No one has even been arrested..although the defense seems to believe that is eminent, thus the defense fund for someone not even charged or arrested yet for any crime. If he were so innoecent and they thought there was no evidence why would Drew mount a defense fund..no arrest..no trial?

My discussion is based at where we are today..the GJ..that has nothing to do with Salem in the 1600's.

 

[TKS2003]

In Salem, 1692, due process also differed.

And this applies to Stacy's disappearance, how?

 

[DeltaDawn]

I will post this again for reference only..we are not talking about a trial here..we are talking about the GJ.

The GJ does not need "beyond a reasonable doubt" to send a person to trial..they just need to hear what the prosecution and those called before the GJ have to say and any evidence the prosecution has. Then they decide if they think an arrest and trial is called for. This isn't a trial ..it is a hearing to decide if he should be arrested and go to trial.

So could we please leave the "beyond a reasonable doubt" discussion until later when an arrest is made and a trial commences? All the GJ needs to determine that someone needs to be arrested and tried is far less evidence then a jury needs to convict.

Wudge could we stick to the subject at hand please..that is the GJ.

 

[Wudge]

And this applies to Stacy's disappearance, how?

Children are taught that a suspect is presumed innocent and has a right to a fair trial. Often, high-profile case discussions seem to forget those teachings.

 

[Wudge]

I will post this again for reference only..we are not talking about a trial here..we are talking about the GJ.

The GJ does not need "beyond a reasonable doubt" to send a person to trial..they just need to hear what the prosecution and those called before the GJ have to say and any evidence the prosecution has. Then they decide if they think an arrest and trial is called for. This isn't a trial ..it is a hearing to decide if he should be arrested and go to trial.

So could we please leave the "beyond a reasonable doubt" discussion until later when an arrest is made and a trial commences? All the GJ needs to determine that someone needs to be arrested and tried is far less evidence then a jury needs to convict.

Wudge could we stick to the subject at hand please..that is the GJ.

It might be a GJ process discussion to you, but others moved straight to the hanging tree. Bad GJ form.

 

[DeltaDawn]

Children are taught that a suspect is presumed innocent and has a right to a fair trial. Often, high-profile case discussions seem to forget those teachings.

Again Wudge..he hasn't even been arrested has he? This is only the GJ..they are needing less evidence ..they aren't assembled to convict..they are assembled to see if he should be arrested and sent to trial. That to me says we are following the letter of the law and should be debating if we were on the GJ now would we send this man to trial? The Gj does not, nor have they ever convicted anyone. It is simply a hearing.

 

[SeriouslySearching]

I grew up in a political family and I wasn't taught that, Wudge. I was taught that in politics, it is not just who you are or who you know....but what you know about who you know that is sometimes as important as presumed innocence. I was raised to understand the underbelly of political pull, the good 'ole boy political party, and how the system REALLY works in a tight knit community. This includes a GJ investigation, being arrested on trumped up charges, and being able to wiggle your way out with the right people being in the right places to help you.

I believe that DP has been living in this type of system for a long time and taking advantage of it. It is going to depend on the people actually on the GJ and if they are connected to other people who DP is connected to. We can only hope this jury is free of his influence so justice can actually move forward this time!

 

[TKS2003]

Children are taught that a suspect is presumed innocent and has a right to a fair trial. Often, high-profile case discussions seem to forget those teachings.

That is true Wudge, and that's why I am here, I want to learn what I can. However children are also taught that here in America we are granted free speech, so people like our fellow WS'ers can sit back and discuss, toss ideas around, etc. to get to the truth. To be honest, I dont remember my children being "taught" that a suspect has the right to be presumed innocent, though my children didn't attend law school. Perhaps in high school in a civics class.

Please stop trying to antagonize people, its so counter productive to what Websleuths is all about.
I understand your proclivity to remind people that Drew is innocent until proven guilty, but honestly, everyone here knows that. We are all interested in what happened to Stacy and where she is. Drew's status as a prisoner is secondary at this point.

 

[DeltaDawn]

I grew up in a political family and I wasn't taught that, Wudge. I was taught that in politics, it is not just who you are or who you know....but what you know about who you know that is sometimes as important as presumed innocence. I was raised to understand the underbelly of political pull, the good 'ole boy political party, and how the system REALLY works in a tight knit community. This includes a GJ investigation, being arrested on trumped up charges, and being able to wiggle your way out with the right people being in the right places to help you.

I believe that DP has been living in this type of system for a long time and taking advantage of it. It is going to depend on the people actually on the GJ and if they are connected to other people who DP is connected to. We can only hope this jury is free of his influence so justice can actually move forward this time!

I agree SS..and the good ole boy club is crumbling around him. They are turning tail and he is left to hang out and dry by himself. Infact he even stated in one of the interviews that he felt that people he thought were friends, etc that would rally round him have stayed their distance.

 

[Wudge]

That is true Wudge, and that's why I am here, I want to learn what I can. However children are also taught that here in America we are granted free speech, so people like our fellow WS'ers can sit back and discuss, toss ideas around, etc. to get to the truth. To be honest, I dont remember my children being "taught" that a suspect has the right to be presumed innocent, though my children didn't attend law school. Perhaps in high school in a civics class.

Please stop trying to antagonize people, its so counter productive to what Websleuths is all about.
I understand your proclivity to remind people that Drew is innocent until proven guilty, but honestly, everyone here knows that. We are all interested in what happened to Stacy and where she is. Drew's status as a prisoner is secondary at this point.

You said: "And YES, I would convict him" (of murder one).

I think that's (how should I say it) a bit early. Is it not?

And if you think I occasionally note due process or sufficient evidence to "antagonize", you are very mistaken. I treat all case discussions the same.

Right now, I am reminded, greatly, of the lynch mob discussions that occurred when Richard Ricci was an imprisoned suspect (suspected of rape and murder) in Elizabeth Smart's disappearance. The 900 unexplained (allegedly) miles on his car was sufficient evidence for everyone but two of us. Everyone else knew no one else had taken her.

 

[TKS2003]

It might be a GJ process discussion to you, but others moved straight to the hanging tree. Bad GJ form.

Wasn't your friend Mr Geragos famous for saying "a grand jury could indict a ham sandwich?"
Isnt it true that GJ's have indicted people on perhaps less or flimsier evidence?Shouldn't we all be able to discuss EVERY possibility of what has happened to Stacy, and who is responsible for her not spending the holidays with her children and family. Do you have any thoughts on where Stacy is, or may have caused her to be missing?

 

[TKS2003]

You said: "And YES, I would convict him" (of murder one).

I think that's (how should I say it) a bit early. Is it not?

And if you think I occasionally note due process or sufficient evidence to "antagonize", you are very mistaken. I treat all case discussions the same.

Right now, I am reminded, greatly, of the lynch mob discussions that occurred when Richard Ricci was an imprisoned suspect (suspected of rape and murder) in Elizabeth Smart's disappearance. The 900 unexplained (allegedly) miles on his car was sufficient evidence for everyone but two of us. Everyone else knew no one else had taken her.

I dont think Murder One was specified.
Lynch mob? There are 30 people reading this forum, voluntarily.
Yes, I will say it again. In my opinion, Drew Peterson murdered Kathleen Savio, and I think he has caused grievous harm to Stacy Peterson.
And yes, I do think you antagonize people when you are posting.