16 total posts
They gave him a deduction in his sentence because of
the years he served as a police officer and his service in the military.
They should have put more years on because he was a police officer and should have known better.
He should be in prison because he's an a**hole.
Must be more to it than his outburst.
I dunno ! Do You?
So Betsy say's " Hey did ya hear this? "psssst," Than Hank walks in and says " hey watcha talkin' about' ? " and says "Well Betsy said "This" and Hank tells me he gets it "straight from the horses mouth" ! Well It Must Be True Cause'Betsy Say's she heard it! This Hearsay evidence cannot be allowed in our courts ! Drew Peterson may be a complete jerk and maybe he did commit those heinous crimes but,Prove It ! I can't agree with these hearsay decisions .... Digger
You're accepting his assertion it's all hearsay and lies
I'm no lawyer but if I'm not mistaken, the general exception for hearsay being allowed in court is if someone told me something and is now dead, I may testify as to what he/she said. If they're alive and in heath enough to appear in court, the requirement would be they would have to testify.
I'm not certain as far as me testifying to someone making verbal threats against someone else in my presence, but I think they're generally accepted.
What isn't accepted is what you're describing. I may testify as to what you said to me about your intentions and actions. Except in very narrow circumstances, I'm not allowed to testify as to what you told me your best friend said.
That's my general understanding.
But your outcry about justice system being corrupted is accepting his claim he is only convicted on hearsay. Your own link only recounts his claims, how does it support or deny those claims? It doesn't even attempt to, it just reports what he claims to deny his guilt.
So why do you accept that as prove the system has failed?
I can't say he's lying, I wasn't there
and some real miscarriages of justice happen.
But even in just this article, he makes me think of people who nothing is ever their fault, someone else always made them do it, lied to them, lied about them etc
if two people
give witness to what someone said they personally saw and knew, then their testimony of what they heard from that person where it agrees can be counted as true, although what they heard or were told by someone who saw it might be false. Corroborating evidence which they had no way of knowing which backed up what they were told might also then be applied and the conviction would not be entirely on hearsay.
ah proof, you want a video tape or his own confession huh
From one of the dirtbag's biggest fans.................
What I'm getting at here isn't really about Drew Peterson
I'ts about Hearsay in the courts ! Hearsay was never allowed in the courts but now I think it's going to become standard because of this trial. Now everyone has to watch they're A$$E$ because of what someone might say they may have heard? C'mon !
I think there have always been
exceptions that allowed some hearsay in court.
Just not what Aunt Bea heard two other women talking about at the general store.
take another situation
Two people, who may be strangers to each other, come upon someone lying side of the road, his life ebbing out from stab wounds. Before the person dies he tells them the name and a description of who stabbed him. He also describes his car the person left in. He then dies. Police come, separate the witnesses to the man's death and both persons give the same information to them. They find the man named later on. They find the car described later on. No knife is ever found. Maybe a blood spot is found on or in the car. No fingerprints on or in the car relate to the person named. A knife known to be owned by the person named as killer which also would match the wounds has disappeared and the person claims he has no idea where it went. Should we believe the dying words as related to witnesses of his death? I would hope so. Is it possible someone else did the stabbing and the dying man made a mistake on who that person was? Possible perhaps, but not probable. Is it possible the knife which would match the wounds and is now missing is NOT the same knife the suspect once owned? Possible, but not probable.
I do agree that passing a new law simply to ease conviction of a current court case is playing dirty pool with the justice system.
I don't think that would be hearsay
if the dying person told two complete strangers that "he knows the person that stabbed him with a knife and stole his car"... but, but, but,... since we're being hypothetical, say the dying man's son killed him because said dying man is such a jerk and the dying man loved his son and the dying man was going to protect the son from going to jail and the dying man said "James Denison did this to me" and the police can't find a knife either , should we just say ok James did it because the dying man said so?
first you have to prove James was in the area at the time
no matter what someone say, or even if evidence led that way, if he was somewhere else, he couldn't do it.