The VERDICT! He's....GUILTY!!!

[Madeleine74]

but when we heard the two hearsay witnesses

He didn't specify which exact witnesses those were. He may be thinking one or both were "hearsay" witnesses and they might not both have been. Still doesn't tell me anything--it only says this juror thought those 2 witnesses (whoever they are) were hearsay witnesses. Maybe they were...maybe not.

 

[Woe.be.gone]

IIRC, he is facing up to 60 years for Kathleen's murder.

After thinking about it a little more, I don't think he will ever tell. To tell means he would have to admit responsibility and he is going to play the martyr/victim.

This is what I think too. He'll never admit anything to anyone. But we know the truth.

Cubby, the other thread is closed. I went back to finish reading there and read a post in reply to mine where I said 'You're mean' (Sox versus Cub fans). Down thread you apologized if you offended anybody - NOT! I was kidding when I posted that and believed by using 'da Bears' peeps would get that. I don't think you're mean as you were clearly just joking around. It always bugs me when posts are misunderstood especially if taken negatively - so just wanted to clarify our exchange.

 

[panthera]

I dont think it was those witnesses that convinced them.

It was the hearsay statements let in through the Pastor and Harry Smith, the divorce lawyer.

He mentioned 'two' and I believe those are the two he is speaking about.

Is this the first case tried in Illinois under the new 'Drew Law?"

imo

Yesterday, the jury asked for transcript read-back of testimony of both Smith and Schori. Yes, I agree, it was the hearsay that convinced this juror. And ironically, it was what Stacy said......

MOO

 

[passionflower]

I wish Drew law was called Kathleen's law or Stacey's law on the hearsay................

 

[passionflower]

I'd love to be a fly on the wall of DP cell to hear him tonight...after all he thinks he is so great........NOT, NEVER............

 

[fifteen89]

It seems logical to me that the defendants words can be used against them. Yeah, I know what hearsay is. But even when someone testifies to what the defendant told them directly, the defendant can still deny saying it and let it become a credibility issue.

Miranda warnings say 'anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law'. I guess the lesson is: if you're planning on doing what you're threatening to do, don't say it out loud where someone might hear you. And if you make it so the people you do say it to are not available to testify, be prepared for whoever they repeated your words to to testify on their behalf.

I think it's completely fitting that someone as cocky and arrogant as DP ended up being convicted because of his own words.

 

[passionflower]

fifteen 89
his words will come back to haunt him on Stacey's murder trial........
it is all on the news video's.....LOL
hope he gets arrested for her murder and adds another 60 years to his sentence!

 

[Madeleine74]

The defense thinks the verdict will be overturned on appeal--based on hearsay being allowed. An appellate court will look at how the judge ruled and, according to the law in place, did the judge make proper rulings?

First, IL has a hearsay law on the books. The law passed the legislature in 2008 and has been in place for 4 years. Right or wrong, they have the law. So it's there and can be used under certain circumstances. The law would have to be overturned and that's a whole other ball of wax.

Second, did the judge apply the existing hearsay rule correctly to the hearsay testimony he did allow? We know he barred lots of statements and other hearsay testimony. He allowed in some of Schori's statements and some of Smith's, but not all. He also allowed in some of KS's sisters' statements and barred other statements. He was quite strict and controlling. That means he was being very careful not to allow anything in that could create reversible error at the appellate level.

I think DP is screwed is how I interpret it.

 

[passionflower]

Have we heard from any of DP relatives? friends? co-workers?
Did anyone stand beside him beside his 1 son?
curious

 

[drip~drop]

Will DP have a new mug shot now?
Will DP get to keep his pension?
Will DP get to keep the insurance?
monies from the house and play toys?
Will he lose control of who raises his minor children?

probably---- a prison mugshot :jail:
I hope not, he certainly doesn't deserve it. He was a cop when he did ill doings.(ummmm MURDERER!)
I wouldn't think so?
Probably will go to Stacys family to raise the 2 children. Which by the way, I hope Stacys family demands her children back!
I HOPE so!!!!!!!

I pray for Kathys boys. They are forever harmed. imo

 

[AbbieNormal]

I think he flew over lake Michigan at a height that wouldn't be seen on radar and dropped her into the lake from a plane. There would be nothing left on impact. Think of the impact of that plane crash in NM not long ago, where the guy almost hit the spectators. There was nothing left of that plane and a plane is more solid than a human body.

that's my theory.

Not from the little "plane" he had. It was built from a kit, very small. Wish I had a picture.

abbie

 

[passionflower]

DP laughed at Kathleen's funeral after taking her beautiful life, I hope she is smiling now.

 

[passionflower]

Not from the little "plane" he had. It was built from a kit, very small. Wish I had a picture.

abbie

we discussed that at length years ago, agree to small.....like a glider.
BUT IIRC, he had keys to a friends piper???
The BIKE ride for 3 days always bothered me.
It was to CLEAR his mind..........yeah right.......:banghead:

 

[drip~drop]

I'd love to be a fly on the wall of DP cell to hear him tonight...after all he thinks he is so great........NOT, NEVER............

Ok, so remember Stacy wanted a divorce? Drew was always stalking her, probably tapped her phone too.
I'm like 100% sure, Stacys contact with the lawyer sealed her fate. He knew she told on him.:twocents:

 

[WindyCityGirl]

this issue. Judge Burmilla was extremely cautious about what he allowed to be heard in court. Some legal experts are saying that because of his meticulous application of the hearsay rule that there isn't any possibility for an appeal, while others are saying that the law itself will be changed and will go all the way to the US Supreme Court.
No one denies that the use of hearsay is slippery, but in this case, as well as in others, it is viable and vitally important.
People are tried and convicted wrongfully without the use of hearsay, so I think the argument that this has opened the door to more wrongful convictions is false. Careful consideration of every piece of evidence will be employed.
So what was I trying to say here? :lol:
Yes, I agree with you......if there are any attempts to overturn "Drews Law" it will take years to do....by that time, we will have tried and convicted him for the murder of Stacy Peterson too.:rocker:
I think that his goose is cooked and he isn't getting out of there.....Drew is a done deal. :highfive:

The defense thinks the verdict will be overturned on appeal--based on hearsay being allowed. An appellate court will look at how the judge ruled and, according to the law in place, did the judge make proper rulings?

First, IL has a hearsay law on the books. The law passed the legislature in 2008 and has been in place for 4 years. Right or wrong, they have the law. So it's there and can be used under certain circumstances. The law would have to be overturned and that's a whole other ball of wax.

Second, did the judge apply the existing hearsay rule correctly to the hearsay testimony he did allow? We know he barred lots of statements and other hearsay testimony. He allowed in some of Schori's statements and some of Smith's, but not all. He also allowed in some of KS's sisters' statements and barred other statements. He was quite strict and controlling. That means he was being very careful not to allow anything in that could create reversible error at the appellate level.

I think DP is screwed is how I interpret it.

 

[LambChop]

I really have to agree with this juror somewhat. It was the hearsay statements that made it possible for DP to be found guilty.

IMO

Eleven jurors felt DP was guilty without the hearsay evidence. It was the 12th juror who was convinced by the hearsay evidence. He is saying he wouldn't without the hearsay but the other's clearly felt he was guilty. jmo

 

[fhc]

After Cullen Davis, OJ & Casey Anthony the justice system seemed broke. Now, there may still be hope...

Drew Peterson was and is evil, jmo. Control and greed have stained his childrens' lives forever, not to mention so many others. You can't love your children and kill there mothers.

Now, justice for Stacy. Her children need this to close the chapter forever on their father.

 

[panthera]

The defense thinks the verdict will be overturned on appeal--based on hearsay being allowed. An appellate court will look at how the judge ruled and, according to the law in place, did the judge make proper rulings?

First, IL has a hearsay law on the books. The law passed the legislature in 2008 and has been in place for 4 years. Right or wrong, they have the law. So it's there and can be used under certain circumstances. The law would have to be overturned and that's a whole other ball of wax.

Second, did the judge apply the existing hearsay rule correctly to the hearsay testimony he did allow? We know he barred lots of statements and other hearsay testimony. He allowed in some of Schori's statements and some of Smith's, but not all. He also allowed in some of KS's sisters' statements and barred other statements. He was quite strict and controlling. That means he was being very careful not to allow anything in that could create reversible error at the appellate level.

I think DP is screwed is how I interpret it.

BBM

Exactly! While his rulings appeared to favor the defense, it is my belief he was using an abundance of caution in trying to insure there would not be reversible errors on appeal. I cannot see the court of appeals overturning this conviction.

MOO

 

[Madeleine74]

After Cullen Davis, OJ & Casey Anthony the justice system seemed broke. Now, there may still be hope...

The justice system isn't totally broke and it isn't perfect either. Some would say it works exactly as intended, when 12 citizens come together and remain impartial and render a verdict (whether we like or agree with the verdict).

Innocent people get convicted, we know this. Less so nowadays due to the level of DNA testing available, but the system is not perfect. And we know some guilty people walk in the end too. The system is pretty much the same as it always was. Imperfect, but the best one anyone has come up with so far. Remember, Lizzy Borden was acquitted of murder back in the 1890s. The system wasn't perfect then either.

 

[Bravo]

BBM

Exactly! While his rulings appeared to favor the defense, it is my belief he was using an abundance of caution in trying to insure there would not be reversible errors on appeal. I cannot see the court of appeals overturning this conviction.

MOO

Me either