Soxy Posted May 12, 2009 Share Posted May 12, 2009 After witnessing all of that, Stacy still married him? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CanOfCorn Posted May 12, 2009 Share Posted May 12, 2009 QUOTE (longshot7 @ May 12, 2009 -> 01:05 PM) I know a little about the case... it's pretty solid, that's why they took 18 months before making the arrest. That's what I would think. Peterson has been making a mockery of all the proceedings. Whether it's by going on TV or joking about it. I would think they would really want to nail the sonuvab**** because he's been laughing at them. I hope they found something that they didn't have before and therefore wipes that ridiculous smile off his face...Jackass. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted May 12, 2009 Share Posted May 12, 2009 QUOTE (longshot7 @ May 12, 2009 -> 01:05 PM) I know a little about the case... it's pretty solid, that's why they took 18 months before making the arrest. They have no witness and no body. I'm not certain how solid that can ever be. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
clyons Posted May 12, 2009 Share Posted May 12, 2009 QUOTE (Texsox @ May 12, 2009 -> 02:13 PM) They have no witness and no body. I'm not certain how solid that can ever be. They have Kathleen's body, whose murder is the one he's been indicted for. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted May 12, 2009 Share Posted May 12, 2009 QUOTE (PlaySumFnJurny @ May 12, 2009 -> 02:15 PM) They have Kathleen's body, whose murder is the one he's been indicted for. That's right. He's killed so many allegedly Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CanOfCorn Posted May 13, 2009 Share Posted May 13, 2009 This just reeks of a Drew Peterson deathbed confession... ...and book deal. Every time I see Drew...I feel like I need to take a shower. And not in a good way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
longshot7 Posted May 13, 2009 Share Posted May 13, 2009 QUOTE (Texsox @ May 12, 2009 -> 12:13 PM) They have no witness and no body. I'm not certain how solid that can ever be. And you have to realize how few murder cases have eyewitnesses - circumstantial evidence IS EVERYTHING. And the circumstantial evidence here is pretty good, never mind that they do have Kathy's body, unlike Stacy's. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoodAsGould Posted May 13, 2009 Share Posted May 13, 2009 QUOTE (longshot7 @ May 13, 2009 -> 01:01 PM) And you have to realize how few murder cases have eyewitnesses - circumstantial evidence IS EVERYTHING. And the circumstantial evidence here is pretty good, never mind that they do have Kathy's body, unlike Stacy's. Actually eye witnesses are some of the least reliable evidence in court cases today, all about forensics and motive. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoxFan562004 Posted May 14, 2009 Share Posted May 14, 2009 QUOTE (SoxFan101 @ May 13, 2009 -> 03:09 PM) Actually eye witnesses are some of the least reliable evidence in court cases today, all about forensics and motive. which can be a problem for prosecutors. People watch shows on TV and want to see exactly what they see on TV, when it's not realistic that it will exist for every case. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted May 14, 2009 Share Posted May 14, 2009 QUOTE (SoxFan101 @ May 13, 2009 -> 03:09 PM) Actually eye witnesses are some of the least reliable evidence in court cases today, all about forensics and motive. Eye witness is not circumstantial evidence. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoodAsGould Posted May 14, 2009 Share Posted May 14, 2009 QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ May 14, 2009 -> 12:09 PM) Eye witness is not circumstantial evidence. Eye witnesses are unreliable, most of the wrongfully convicted criminals can be pinned to eyewitnesses. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoxFan562004 Posted May 14, 2009 Share Posted May 14, 2009 QUOTE (SoxFan101 @ May 13, 2009 -> 03:09 PM) Actually eye witnesses are some of the least reliable evidence in court cases today, all about forensics and motive. Kind of depends on so many factors. How good is the defense attorney at cross? How good is the prosecuting attorney at direct? How does the eyewitness come across to the jury? Who's on the jury? How good of a look did the eyewitness get? What evidence can be brought in to support or discredit the witness, ie lighting of the scene? Is the eyewitness a co-defendant who struck a deal or an ordinary citizen? Forensics is strong, but again, it's not there in every case. Motive can be good, but a good defense attorney should be able to do a solid job of putting reasonable doubt on motive in many cases. Murder cases, or any criminal case, is a set of facts specific to the individual crime. You have to go beyond the set of individual facts to look at the judge you're in front of, the strength of the prosecuting attorney, the jury pool you're selecting from, the actual jury once it's seated and many other factors. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoxFan562004 Posted May 14, 2009 Share Posted May 14, 2009 QUOTE (G&T @ May 12, 2009 -> 08:45 AM) Furthermore, the legislature believes that the probative value of letters such as this (particularly in mob cases) outweighs the prejudicial effect. This is likely because the reader of the letters can be cross examined as to their impression of the sincerity of the letter. If, for example, Savios did nothing to try to help her, then the defense will claim that the letters were meaningless. just giving this some quick thought, this is what the strongest attack should be on. I imagine they'll just hammer that even though they can bring the argument you make about asking the family member why they didn't help, the prejudicial effect of having the victims words read outloud by a potentially emotional family member who is allowed to add their own stress to specific words, probably "coached" by the prosecution, is too unfair. To me it will be like having the prosecution writing a script for the victim to say on the stand. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.