Evidence that Drew Peterson murdered wife?

Great Debates
1

Peterson was convicted today. I didn’t follow the case that closely, but it is my understanding that there was no evidence that tied Drew to the crime scene. It was unclear whether the 3rd wife was killed or whether she died in an accident. The police and investigators originally ruled it an accident. The case was based mainly based on Drew’s allegedly trying to hire a hitman and hearsay statements from his 3rd and 4th wives. I really don’t understand how they got the 4th wife’s hearsay statements in–was there really a preponderance of evidence that he was responsible for her unavailability? Does anybody really know happened to her? With the 3rd wife was there a preponderance of evidence that one of his motivations for killing her was to make her unavailable as a witness? Was the prosecution able to use the hearsay statements to bootstrap their admissibility?

Was there sufficient evidence to bring in the hearsay? Was there sufficient evidence to convict Peterson?

2

Yeah, Man, there wasn’t a lot of evidence. As a Local to this case, I can tell you that it was bungled from the beginning. A coroner’s inquest was (one of) the first mis-steps. And the inability of the State to prove the case, without hearsay testimony is scary. It all screams of a weak case, and a plan for vengance. And this opinion is from someone who believes that this Bastard Cop killed his dead wife, and his missing wife.

3

Illinois recently passed a law – thought by many to be tailored to the Drew Peterson case – that changed things. The “Hearsay Exception for Intentional Murder of a Witness,” rule allows for hearsay evidence to be admitted if, inter alia, the proponent of the evidence can prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the party against whom the statement is offered intentionally murdered the declarant.

It’s not as novel a concept as the Peterson defense team wants to believe. In the federal system, Rule 804(b)(6) provides, “A statement offered against a party that wrongfully caused — or acquiesced in wrongfully causing — the declarant’s unavailability as a witness, and did so intending that result,” is admissible as an exception to the hearsay rule. Similarly, at common law, there exists the concept of “forfeiture by wrongdoing,” which reaches the same general result.

Note, however, a key difference: in the new Illinois law, the intent of the murderer is irrelevant – if the court finds that Ted killed Bill, then Bill’s hearsay is admissible against Ted. But in the federal system, Ted must have killed Bill intending, at least in part, to prevent him from testifying.

This is not a meaningless distinction: the Supreme Court, in Giles v California, overturn the conviction of a man who shot his girlfriend. He claimed self-defense. At trial, the prosecution introduced a statement she made three weeks before she died that Giles had accused her of cheating on him and threatening her life.

He was convicted and appealed, raising the Confrontation Clause. He said he was not permitted to confront the witnesses against him, as the Sixth Amendment requires. The Supreme Court agreed, saying that because the prosecution failed to prove that Giles killed his girlfriend to stop her from testifying, her hearsay testimony did not fall within the exception and was barred by the Confrontation Clause.

However, the Court also discussed when such intent might be inferred, and (in dicta) mentioned domestic violence as one example of a situation in which the intent to isolate the victim from friends and family might also be considered an attempt to stop her from reporting the crime or testifying…so Peterson’s domestic violence cord might be the key that allows the court to assume her death was intended to prevent testimony, and thus an exception to the Confrontation Clause.

4

Didn’t know Illinois doesn’t require intent. Thanks. For the confrontation clause to apply doesn’t the statement have to testimonial–to law enforcement or other official?

Edit - that.is a bad description of testimonial. I don’t really know the full definition of testimonial.

5

I was wondering how Giles was going to fit into all of this before it is said and done.

6

Dude sure does go through the ladies.

7

You’re in good company:

8

Nice analysis, but I just wanted to pick on this point: If you can’t prove that Peterson killed wife #4 to prevent her from testifying, it seems that you would have an even more difficult time proving that he beat on her to prevent her from testifying.

I also think that Peterson is a guilty, guilty bastard, but that’s no reason to gut the Sixth Amendment which is why I am uncomfortable with how he was convicted.

9

Yeah, but he DID that shit. Just like OJ. You really want someone like that out of jail?

10

No, I don’t. But I also think it’s essential in a fair justice system to be able to question witnesses against you.

11

And if you killed them first, before they could testity?

Dude, there comes a point, when you’ve got a cop who is able to evade the law precisely because of his knowledge of forensic evidence, that you just have to put the motherfucker in jail any goddamned way you can.

I personally feel bad about thinking that OJ was basically a half-decent guy who just couldn’t control his temper, and that he wasn’t, generally-speaking, a criminal. I thought he would probably never commit another violent crime. He proved me very wrong.

Even if Peterson DIDN’T commit other crimes, he could still get married again, and kill yet ANOTHER wife. Women, just like men, can be really, realllly stupid in their choice of mate. For that matter, he could get a mail-order bride, or move to the Phillippines, and marry/kill women there, if no American women was dumb enough.

12

And if we allow that there comes a point when anyone can be put in jail for any god damn reason. I am fairly sure this guy was guilty and i was sure OJ was, but the OJ verdict was right and this was wrong.

13

The reasoning, though, is that if you can show that the domestic violence was intended, even in part, to isolate the victim, that single fact allows the inference. So,that’s actually easier than a generalized inference arising from a murder.

14

What precedent are we setting for other cops like Peterson, if we let them kill again and again, so long as they kill all witnesses and leave no forensic evidence?

I mean, we could just wait until someone lynches his ass..sooner or later, if the law won’t deal with him, some private citizen(s) WILL…which do you think is better?

15

I’m not familiar with the “isolating the victim” aspect of domestic violence. I realize that could be a consequence of domestic violence, but I’ve never heard an accused come into court declaring that he intended to isolate the bitch. :wink:

Since you have to prove intent, it would seem that the obvious “intent” behind domestic violence is that the man is usually a selfish, drunken asshole who is taking out his miserable life on his wife’s face. I would think it a tall barrier to prove that instead of the common reason for DV, the accused attempted to “isolate” his victim.

It would also seem to turn Gates v. Washington (I think that was the case) on its head. A person accused of DV could always not have the right to face his accuser because he committed DV and attempted to isolate her! A circular form of reasoning that would/could apply in every domestic violence prosecution!

16

I’m not intimately familiar with the Peterson case but if I had been a juror on the OJ trial the evidence presented would have more than convinced me. In particular the 911 tapes where an enraged OJ is breaking into Nicole’s townhouse and numerous threats of violence and murder. I mean she requested OJ be kept out of the delivery room during the birth of their second child because of his abusive behaviour during the birth of their first. Just a mountain of evidence of domestic abuse and fear.

17

I was just the opposite. All of the blood evidence convinced me, but the 911 tapes sort of looked like an overreach. Yeah, OJ had a temper and probably wanted to get back with Nicole, but she shunned him. That’s typical in many divorces that don’t end in the knifing deaths of two people.

I’m not excusing domestic violence, but there are literally millions who commit domestic violence and don’t escalate to murder. That evidence seems too attenuated to me when they had all of that blood evidence.

They should have used that time to construct an absurd hypo about the level of a conspiracy that would have been required to have Goldman’s blood in OJ’s car. THAT was the smoking gun that can’t be explained away by anything else.

18

The odds of a woman aged 25-50 or so dying by murder from anyone OTHER than a former/current SO is actually very, very low. Nearly all women of that age group that get murdered, statisically speaking, are killed by a SO. That, plus the fact that he beat her so much, plus the circumstantial evidence, pretty much makes the case a slam dunk.

The jury was obviously racially motivated.

19

There’s a difference between “showing intent” and “proving intent”, and I believe the former is all that is required. You don’t have to have enough evidence to convict on the later murder to show intent to suppress testimony.

20

That’s sounds (to me) like a substantive rather than procedural change. How did it apply to his trial?