The Place Where Ludington Talks
Drew Peterson, Sean Phillips: Justice Served?
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?
Views: 585
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Dave on
-
I think the point X is trying to make here is this... is Drew Peterson guilty? The hearsay evidence is traditionally not allowed in court cases/trials as its much harder, if even possible, to find out if that evidence is actually true. Peterson doesn't help himself with his attitude which may have played some role in his conviction although it would be hard to say how big of a role if it was indeed the case that it did play a role. Peterson makes himself easy to hate and the fact that he has one dead ex wife and a missing wife, one could see that being on the mind of a juror... generally that would be a bit much of a coincidence.
-
Permalink Reply by XLFD on
-
The various protections imbued by the sixth amendment includes the confrontation clause: "the accused shall enjoy the right... to be confronted with the witnesses against him..." This clause has traditionally meant that hearsay information was disallowable with few exceptions. The rationale was that the defendant had no opportunity to challenge the credibility of and cross-examine the person making the statements.
Drew Peterson, as Dave said, has an attitude and bad press; both can foster rumor and hearsay just by themself, to sweeten the story for the consumers. If he is guilty of one or both of his ex-wives deaths, I surely do want him to be punished for it. But I think imprisoning someone who is innocent, is much worse for society than letting a guilty person go free, when the usual standards of justice are followed fairly. Changing the rules midstream to reduce the rights guaranteed by the Constitution in order to successfully prosecute someone is a terrible remedy for society.
-
Permalink Reply by Willy on
-
CLFD
Suppose you or a family member is accused of a crime you did not commit and there is no physical evidence or witnesses linking you to that crime. At your trial people that you have not gotten along with or who dislike you are allowed to get up and testify and give unprovable information about you. How would you feel about that. I don't know if Peterson or Philips are guilty because no physical evidence was presented. Because these 2 were convicted in a manner resembling a Kangaroo Court, it puts all of our freedoms and rights in peril of being taken away. Whatever applies to them can and will be applied to all of us. A lot of people don't seem to understand that the right to a fair trial applies to all of us not just to people we like.
-
-
Excellent points, Willy; anyone can be wrongly accused of a crime, and if just being picked up and accused of a crime by police officers, well-meaning or not, makes you need to prove your innocence rather than having them prove your guilt, we have lost a very important right. Excellently illustrated in the novel/movie To Kill a Mockingbird, among others.
-
Permalink Reply by AQUAMAN on
-
Drew is an obvious ex-cop scum bag, whereas, Sean is probably an opportunist that sold his baby, big dif. imho. I hope most of the inmates that were convicted/arrested by Drew get to visit him up close in the jails soon too, maybe he'll be on the receiving side this time. As for heresay rights, I agree, this is not in line with a just and fair trial, and perhaps it shouldn't be in this particular type of case, as Drew's rights, like his wive's, is now being violated for the sake of final justice, that which is pre-ordained before God's justice.
-
-
The difference between Phillips and Peterson is rather stark, in almost all ways. But was Drew Peterson's record as an officer one that pointed to an overbearing cop who trampled on the rules, or might have led one to believe he had a violent streak in him to commit a couple of murders?
Sean's history has him being anything other than a monster; no criminal past, reserved character, peaceful demeanor, National Guardsman, etc. I have a hard time seeing him taking his own baby out on some swampy area, killing her, covering up the deed, and then voluntarily meeting with authorities. That's almost as unlikely as Lingyan Zou jumping into cold, murky water of unknown depth at the City Marina in an attempt to kill herself.
-
Permalink Reply by CLFD on
-
The evidence against Sean was what convicted him.
What did he do with his innocent helpless baby?
-
-
What evidence?, there is no body, remember? I say the two colluded to sell the baby, illegally, and keep closed mouths till they reunite at a later date, and split the loot. Only logical explanation I can think of at this late date.
-
-
Name the body of evidence that led to his conviction, CLFD. Muddy shoes, seeds, a jail note, a timetable, baby kate clothes in his back pocket?
As your question makes clear, there isn't a body or any evidence of a murder having took place, so she very well could be alive in a scenario like Aquaman states, and a variety of other possible scenarios not yet ruled out.
-
-
XLFD
I never said there was a murder? So what are you asking me about that for?
The evidence? Seriously?
1. Missing baby.
2. Eye witness.
3. Time table.
4. Clothes in pocket.
5. Soiled diaper in car.
6. NOTE in his handwriting!
The only question is, What did he do with his innocent helpless baby?
Anybody who honestly believes the baby's mother could actually keep her mouth shut all this time is only fooling themself.
© 2024 Created by XLFD.
Powered by
