Drew Peterson, Sean Phillips: Justice Served?

[XLFD]

Drew Peterson, a former cop who found himself at the epicenter of national news a few years ago when his fourth wife Stacy Peterson turned up missing, was just recently convicted of murdering his third wife, Kathleen Savio.  Savio was found in her bathtub back in 2004 supposedly the victim of an accidental drowning; the investigating officers closed the case without getting evidence, Drew wasn't with Savio at the time, although he lived with Stacy in the same neighborhood and was involved with divorce proceedings with Savio.

Shortly after Stacy came up missing in 2007 under even more suspicious circumstances, the Savio case was re-opened and re-dubbed a murder investigation.  The trial was the first of its kind in Illinois history, with prosecutors building their case largely on hearsay thanks to a new law, dubbed "Drew's Law," tailored to Peterson's case. That hearsay, prosecutors had said, would let his third and fourth wives "speak from their graves" through family and friends in order to convict Peterson.  Hearsay is indirect knowledge not personally witnessed by those testifying.

Witnesses told jurors that Savio told of being threatened by Peterson, that  she feared for her life and slept with a knife under her mattress out of  concerns that Peterson would follow through threats and kill her.  Witnesses testified about how Savio's body was discovered by a  neighbor March 1, 2004. She was face down in her dry bathtub, her thick, black  hair soaked in blood and a 2-inch gash on the back of her head.  Jurors heard that Peterson had divorced Savio a year before her death and, according to  prosecutors, killed her out of fear that a pending settlement, which included  their $300,000 home, a tavern they both owned and Peterson's police pension,  would wipe him out financially.
What jurors did not hear or see was any physical evidence tying Peterson to  Savio's death. Nor did they hear from any witnesses who placed Peterson at the  scene at the time of Savio's death, or even an exact time she died or how  Peterson might have drowned her.
Many people viscerally dislike Drew Peterson from his sometimes cocky attitude and believe he had a hand in the disappearance of Stacy Peterson in 2007, even though there seems to be only hearsay evidence against Drew in that case as well.  One would expect a cop to be able to pull off the 'perfect crime(s)' better than anyone.

But is this a reason to charge someone with a crime that will put him in prison for 20-60 years?  Do we need to create a special law allowing hearsay information, and then use it to convict someone who allegedly did the crime before the new law was passed?

According to  The Chicago Sun Times:  It was the hearsay evidence against Peterson, the juror said, that convinced him and other jurors to convict Peterson of murder on Thursday in the 2004 death of his third wife, Kathleen Savio.

“Without hearsay evidence would I have found him not guilty? Yes. A lot of the jurors said that, too,” said Ron Supalo, a juror from Bolingbrook. “They were either on the fence or they thought he was innocent. And then with those two hearsay witnesses (Savio’s divorce attorney, Harry Smith, and Stacy Peterson's pastor Rev. Neil Sciori) , bam.”

Attorney Joseph Lopez said jury members “were overwhelmed by the hearsay” statements presented at the trial, despite efforts by Peterson’s attorneys to bar much of that evidence as unreliable.

“It’s a dark day in America when you can convict someone on hearsay evidence. A very dark day,” Lopez said.

He and other Peterson attorneys also blamed the public and media attention Peterson himself courted in repeated interviews with national and local media outlets.

“The whole world wanted Drew to be convicted,” Lopez said.

 

This reminds me of our local issue with Baby Kate and the suspect involved in her disappearance, her father, Sean Phillips.  With the exception of Ariel Courtland, Kate's mother, nobody seen Sean with Kate on the day she went missing.  The physical evidence is weak at best, with the only leads being dirt and seeds found on shoes that may have been worn by Sean that day.  Sean is anything but cocky, however, he has not said anything since he was initially interrogated and claimed ignorance of having 'kidnapped' Kate, nor did he testify at the trial.  He has that right to do so, and it should not be held against him, just like it should not have been used against Drew.

But since the Prosecutor of Mason County failed to lay a strong groundwork for finding guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, Circuit Court Judge Richard Cooper, bent the laws just enough to allow for a conviction to take place, much like Illinois' legislature did for Drew.  And as with Drew's trial, we had plenty of hearsay information coming from many of the prosecutor's witnesses in Sean's trial and conjecture, but...

What jurors did not hear or see was any physical evidence tying Phillips to Baby Kate's disappearance/death, nor any witness (other than one who 'gave false information' under oath) who linked the two together that day she went missing.  Everyone wants justice for both Baby Kate Phillips and Grown-up Kate Savio, but do we need to bypass the Bill of Rights to blame convenient scapegoats who can't prove their innocence?

[XLFD]

The problem is, even when the PA doesn't have much of a case, he can generally get the friendly local judges to help them out, even when a jury is seated.  I exclude Honorable Pete Wadel out of that clique. 

All the evidence CLFD presented is circumstantial except for the one eyewitness, the mother, who has apparently lied over substantive issues in court.  The note was never presented as Sean's handwriting (to my knowledge) and it proved nothing, whether authentic or not.  It helped the prosecutor's preponderance of material, not evidence. 

[AQUAMAN]

CLFD is in "denial" here, no not the Nile, just saying....lol. I am too, except it concerns "summer", can't believe it's over again now......just saying,....it was too hot,.....but over now? WOW!

[CLFD]

The note was never argued by the defense as NOT Sean's either. The only logical conclusion for a jury is that the note was Sean's.

 

What did he do with his innocent helpless baby?

Is she alive?

Or not?

[XLFD]

In criminal procedure, the Prosecutor is supposed to lay out the case, and the defense can stand mute if they feel the prosecution hasn't made a case for it.  Let us not forget that the burden of proof is not on the defendant. 

If I was a jury member, I would not put any weight behind the note, and not assume that Sean wrote the note.  In fact, if the Prosecutor has used seed and dirt specialists to 'prove' other points, I would think that since he didn't use handwriting specialists to prove it was Sean's handwriting, I would more likely assume and conclude it wasn't his handwriting.

In my honest opinion, the proper mindset a jurist should have at the start of a trial, and this includes both judges and jury members, is that the accused criminal could not have done such an act that he was accused of. 

Let the prosecution change your mind during the course of a trial, if he can, but listen to the defense carefully because they really don't have to prove anything, and quite often they can't prove innocence. 

At the end of the trial, they must consider the moral dilemma of the possibility of sending an innocent person to jail or worse. 

I wasn't at the Phillips trial, but followed it closely through Tweets and various news sources.  I doubt I would have found Phillips guilty of secret confinement.

As for your last question, it is speculative with what the people know.

[CLFD]

You are entitled to your opinion. I am entitled to disagree with your opinion.

A jurist should approach their assignment with an open mind, and hold to the mindset that the defendent is not guilty unless proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

The prosecution submitted a note written by Sean stating he gave the baby away. The defense had ample opportunity to deny that Sean wrote the note. A jurist is not supposed to defend the accused, that is the defense attorney's job.

If 12 members of a jury ultimately determine that a defendent is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, then there are legal avenues available for appeal.That is how it is supposed to work.

 

Where is the innocent helpless baby?

[CLFD]

Your own opinion about a jurist's mindset is a curious one.

 

Especially in light of all the criminal accusations and illegal innuendoes you direct towards Ludington and Mason County Governmental Officials right here on this webblog.

[XLFD]

My innuendos are illegal? 

Sean wasn't put away for giving or selling Baby Kate to others.  That would not be secret confinement, and so the note would open up more reasonable doubt, because the prosecution didn't use it to show secret confinement, just to intimate that Sean was practicing a ruse in order to get out of murder/secret confinement charges and put him in a bad light because of that. 

Corruption and unethical acts by public officials, well illustrated by public records, is much different than criminal acts by individuals.  If John Shay was brought to bear for his perjury in a criminal court, I would hope he had fair jurors and a fair judge, and a prosecutor who would try to do his job to the best of his ability.   

[CLFD]

XLFD

You read it wrong. It is not your innendos are illegal. It is your innendos about alleged illegal actions by COL officials. Have you or have you not already convicted COL and MC officials on this webblog more times that can be counted?

Innocent until proven guilty in a court of law is supposed to work both ways.

[XLFD]

Gosh CLFD, I didn't know showing public records with analysis gave me the power of convicting anyone.  If you have believed I have convicted any public official of anything show what penalty they were given by my authority.

If you think my threads show convictable offenses, then I wish you had the power to do something about it.  As it were, I show my material to the prosecutor and he comes back and slanders me for something I didn't do or have any knowledge of Spin-a-lie-a.  I'm just a rock lobber with the law on my side, not the lawmen. 

[CLFD]

Do I really need to provide a visual display where you have accused City Officials of criminal activity?

[XLFD]

Pointing out criminal behavior, civil infractions, or unethical behavior of local public officials has been done repeatedly here, CLFD, as a public service.  We cannot convict anyone here, however, we allow the evidence and records to stand for what they may, and may pass along some of this data to other agencies. 

But nowadays, government agencies are loathe to go after their own, so it is an uphill battle.  Sometimes mustering public opinion is the best you can hope for when a public official behaves badly. 

[Willy]

I agree with CLFD. If the handwriting was not Sean's then his attorney would have challenged the note and would have verified the handwriting  with expert testimony. Instead the defendant's attorney virtually ignored the note which in my opinion was crucial evidence and one of the reasons Sean was found guilty.