tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19929098.post6667531382503676909..comments2012-02-05T21:58:10.520-08:00Crimefilehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07841397705805774698noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19929098.post-65832976550106546862012-01-24T06:16:35.398-08:002012-01-24T06:16:35.398-08:00Welcome to Illinois!!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19929098.post-82112570834983121232012-01-23T09:43:33.269-08:002012-01-23T09:43:33.269-08:00Hi Paul;<br />Personally, I believe Drew Peterson is guilty of getting rid of Stacy, and probably the Savio woman, as well, but I realize that&#39;s just my opinion. And nobody&#39;s opinion should count in untried legal matters, such as this.<br /><br />Peterson has made a fool of himself, appearing on the talk show circuit, and belittling various members of the alleged victim’s families. But this is a mistake of civility, not evidence of crime. Peterson may well be a jerk, but a murderer? I don&#39;t know.<br /><br />I don&#39;t think much of James Glasgow, the Will County prosecutor, or of Joe Hosey, Joliet Herald reporter, either, again...just my opinion. Hosey, you can forgive for hustling up a quick buck, with a book--he wouldn&#39;t be the first--but the contents of his book, again, are just his opinions. If he had any relevant facts, he could have given his information to Mr. Glasgow, who we trust to investigate such matters, and bring charges, when appropriate. And, if he can manage to do it correctly...<br /><br />I find the high bond in Drew Peterson&#39;s case suspicious; basically, it&#39;s a way to hold an un-convicted suspect in jail, and Glasgow&#39;s pursuit of appeal remedy, a stalling tactic, again, to hold an un-convicted person in jail. I can see potential civil liability, here. That is, I can easily envision a set of facts in which Drew Peterson could be found not to be guilty, and then, he might very well file a lawsuit--and be entitled to damages, which the taxpayers would be stuck paying. Thanks, again Mr. Glasgow. <br /><br />And, we haven&#39;t even got to the really dangerous part, yet. That is the fact that Drew Peterson&#39;s rights, under our Constitution, have been trampled. And the prosecution is attempting to trample them further: suppression of the ban on hearsay, for one, would be very, very dangerous, and don&#39;t think the police will stop with Drew Peterson. They would use their new police state powers against all citizens. I was raised believing the spirit of our enforcement policies, namely, that it is better that a thousand guilty men go free, than that one innocent man should be punished. These are sacred laws, and unsatisfying as seeing a guilty man go free is, it would be a thousand times worse if the police stooped to illegal means to secure arrests or convictions. This is the reason that the police must be held to the very highest standards of investigation, and the judicial branch held to the very highest standards of prosecution. It&#39;s not criminals we&#39;re protecting, it&#39;s our Constitution, our country.Fred DiFrancesconoreply@blogger.com