Comments on: SHIFTING LEGAL WINDS

By: Noah Vaile

Noah Vaile — Fri, 21 Sep 2012 15:57:13 +0000

“This is the Doctrine of Forfeiture.”
Doesn’t this/wouldn’t this require that the defendant be found guilty of killing the potential witness? A separate trial held on that charge before the first trial could continue.

By: Chad Hendrix

Chad Hendrix — Tue, 18 Sep 2012 22:22:33 +0000

Massad: I get your concerns and understand the risks with hearsay. But, you have to admit, that in the case of Drew Peterson, you have: 1 dead wife, one missing wife, who told others, “Hey, if I ever go missing, Drew Said, he killed Kathlene and he would kill me too.” I think that’s pretty important considering, this guy was a cop, who used his badge and his knowledge, to commit and then cover up his crimes. That makes him a very dangerous man and I think, in this case, testimony from a missing wife, hearsay or not, is justified!

I know, having been a Reserve Deputy for many years, that police officers take real offense to crimes committed by other cops. I think there was a real concern that Drew Peterson was a threat to the very community, he swore to protect.

By: Mas Fan

Mas Fan — Sat, 15 Sep 2012 19:34:49 +0000

Mas,
As a resident of Illinois, I am disgusted by this case. They turned our justice system upside down to convict this guy. We are now on a slippery slope ! I hope this bad joke is overturned on appeal. Hearsay has no place in the court room, shame on Will County !