# Evidence that Drew Peterson murdered wife? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 7, 2012, 1:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evidence-that-drew-peterson-murdered-wife/633941 "2012-09-07T01:48:48Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 12\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2012, 3:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evidence-that-drew-peterson-murdered-wife/633941/21 "2012-09-17T15:49:36Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > That’s sounds (to me) like a substantive rather than procedural change. How did it apply to his trial? It’s not hugely different from the long-standing doctrine of forfeiture by wrongdoing, so I’m not sure I agree it’s substantive. ---
**Author:** ![kenobi\_65](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kenobi_65/32/13178_2.png) [@kenobi\_65](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kenobi_65)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2012, 3:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evidence-that-drew-peterson-murdered-wife/633941/22 "2012-09-17T15:58:32Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > if the court finds that Ted killed Bill, then Bill’s hearsay is admissible against Ted. Ted killed Bill? Man, now there’s no way that Wyld Stallyns will ever get back together. Totally bogus! ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2012, 4:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evidence-that-drew-peterson-murdered-wife/633941/23 "2012-09-17T16:20:51Z")
> [@kenobi\_65](#): > > Ted killed Bill? Man, now there’s no way that Wyld Stallyns will ever get back together. Totally bogus! Unless Ted goes back in time to prevent his past self from killing Bill. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2012, 5:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evidence-that-drew-peterson-murdered-wife/633941/24 "2012-09-17T17:20:13Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > It’s not hugely different from the long-standing doctrine of forfeiture by wrongdoing, so I’m not sure I agree it’s substantive. Yeah, but the doctrine would not have allowed this testimony, AIUI. ---
**Author:** ![Zsofia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/7bcc69/32.png) [@Zsofia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zsofia)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2012, 6:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evidence-that-drew-peterson-murdered-wife/633941/25 "2012-09-17T18:41:31Z")
> [@al27052](#): > > Yeah, but he DID that shit. Just like OJ. You really want someone like that out of jail? So did Miranda. So? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2012, 7:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evidence-that-drew-peterson-murdered-wife/633941/26 "2012-09-17T19:12:23Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Yeah, but the doctrine would not have allowed this testimony, AIUI. I don’t think that’s the standard, though – changing the law to allow additional evidence to be admitted is not the same as changing the law to remove elements of the crime or change the burden of proof the prosecution must reach. I need to re-read Teague before I say anything beyond “think,” though. ---
**Author:** ![al27052](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/41988e/32.png) [@al27052](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/al27052)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2012, 12:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evidence-that-drew-peterson-murdered-wife/633941/27 "2012-09-18T00:45:32Z")
> [@Zsofia](#): > > So did Miranda. So? What do you mean, “So?”? He’s a cop. He’s using training that he learned, to some degree, on the job, to avoid being convicted of murders. Tax money paid for him to learn how to avoid prosecution for murder. Not only does it erode faith in government when this happens, it also raises the danger of vigilantism. If one of the parents of Drew’s dead wives killed him, would you convict, if you were on the jury? Many people wouldn’t. Would they be wrong if they didn’t, by your moral system? Why/why not? ---
**Author:** ![kenobi\_65](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kenobi_65/32/13178_2.png) [@kenobi\_65](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kenobi_65)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2012, 1:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evidence-that-drew-peterson-murdered-wife/633941/28 "2012-09-18T01:51:33Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Unless Ted goes back in time to prevent his past self from killing Bill. Good point. 🙂 Back on topic… I live in the Chicago area. I’ve been following the Peterson cases (mostly through osmosis; if you watch the news or read the papers, it’s been damned hard to avoid) for five years now, since Stacy disappeared. I have very little doubt that he’s a very bad man. I have very little doubt that he’s responsible for the murder of both wives #3 and #4. I hate the fact that a sworn law officer is able to take his knowledge to attempt to get away with murder – twice. I’d love to see the guy put away for the rest of his natural life. And, yet, I didn’t want to see the system abused by the prosecution. It seems like they built their case on circumstantial evidence, the hearsay, and the fact that Peterson is so unlikeable, and has been such an annoying presence in the Chicago media for so long, that a jury would convict even without the smoking gun. I’m pretty convinced that if Peterson had just shut his trap the moment Stacy disappeared in 2005, had not done all of the radio and TV stunts, etc., that he would not have been convicted. ---
**Author:** ![Zsofia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/7bcc69/32.png) [@Zsofia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zsofia)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2012, 2:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evidence-that-drew-peterson-murdered-wife/633941/29 "2012-09-18T02:34:27Z")
> [@al27052](#): > > What do you mean, “So?”? > > He’s a cop. He’s using training that he learned, to some degree, on the job, to avoid being convicted of murders. Tax money paid for him to learn how to avoid prosecution for murder. > > Not only does it erode faith in government when this happens, it also raises the danger of vigilantism. > > If one of the parents of Drew’s dead wives killed him, would you convict, if you were on the jury? Many people wouldn’t. Would they be wrong if they didn’t, by your moral system? Why/why not? So, the Supreme Court overturned Miranda’s conviction because of the _greater good_. Yes, Peterson TOTALLY DID IT. But should we pervert justice for it, therefore allowing the precedent? ---
**Author:** ![al27052](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/41988e/32.png) [@al27052](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/al27052)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2012, 2:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evidence-that-drew-peterson-murdered-wife/633941/30 "2012-09-18T02:45:27Z")
> [@Zsofia](#): > > So, the Supreme Court overturned Miranda’s conviction because of the _greater good_. Yes, Peterson TOTALLY DID IT. But should we pervert justice for it, therefore allowing the precedent? Should Peterson game the system? That, to me, is the larger violation. We pay taxes. We do not expect that money to go toward “training murderers to get away with it”. But from another POV, people expect LEO to be held to a higher standard of behavior…and when they violate that, people naturally (at least in most cases, I’d guess) are going to want the penalty to be more severe, as a deterrent to other LEO. I consider making a special law just to jail Peterson simply a way to avoid subverting the will of the taxpayers/electorate. And finally, pure pragmatism would say that he has to be stopped, very publicly…otherwise, other cops could be emboldened to try the same thing…and people might just vigilante-kill him. It’s better to pervert justice than to encourage vigilante killing, or revenge killing. If he killed my daughter, I might have trouble talking myself into not killing him. Being forgiving is great and all…but a vigilante would be doing a public service, in some ways, by ending him. ---
**Author:** ![j666](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/9de0a6/32.png) [@j666](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/j666)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2012, 3:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evidence-that-drew-peterson-murdered-wife/633941/31 "2012-09-18T03:00:13Z")
> [@jtgain](#): > > 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. 😉 > > 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. This post indicates that you don’t really know much about domestic violence. That’s a good thing. It’s about control; the abuse is typically a mechanism, not the end it itself. ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2012, 8:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evidence-that-drew-peterson-murdered-wife/633941/32 "2012-10-07T20:14:52Z")
> [@Zsofia](#): > > So, the Supreme Court overturned Miranda’s conviction because of the _greater good_. Yes, Peterson TOTALLY DID IT. But should we pervert justice for it, therefore allowing the precedent? What perversion of justice? What greater good is there in not allowing the victim to have any say in a murder trial? It’s obvious to me that there should be an exception to the right to face one’s accusers for the victim of murder. I mean, all other victims get to testify. I want someone to explain to me why the right to face one’s accusers is a cornerstone of justice. Particularly, I want to know why an exception for the dying words of a murder victim would be untenable. Why is preventing such a part of “the greater good”? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evidence-that-drew-peterson-murdered-wife/633941.md?page=1)