Drew Peterson ARRESTED for Murder!!!

[roger teekell]

Just coming out on Fox...CNN...Hell...It's EVERYWHERE!!!

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30630652/

LOCKPORT, Ill. - Drew Peterson, a former Illinois police sergeant long suspected in the disappearance of his fourth wife, was arrested Thursday on a murder charge in the death of his third wife.

Peterson, 55, was taken into custody without incident Thursday evening during a traffic stop in Bolingbrook, not far from his home, Illinois State Police Capt. Carl Dobrich said at a press conference. A two-count indictment accuses him of murdering Kathleen Savio.

[toeknee]

what took them soooooooooo long?

[roger teekell]

what took them soooooooooo long?

Thing is they got him for the 3rd wife ( I think )...

Not the one that is currently missing...

Ain't KARMA a bitch??:D

[toeknee]

he got away with way too much BECAUSE he is a COP :naughty:

[JoJo626]

Can somebody explain how he's being charged with 2 counts of first degree murder for "allegedly" killing one person (wife #3)?

[lsue]

Get ready for the circus. Ugh, I can't stand to look at that creep.
How he has stayed out of prison for so long, I just dont get. He
must have something on someone.

[ImNewHere]

It's a witch hunt.

[LizFire]

Can somebody explain how he's being charged with 2 counts of first degree murder for "allegedly" killing one person (wife #3)?

Common tactic for the arrest warrant/warrants - it gets fixed during his arraignment (which will be on Friday).

There are 2 types of first degree murder
a) with malice and forethought
b) during the commission of another felony

If the authorities believe that the suspect committed the murder with malice and forethought AND during the commission of another felony then they will apply for 2 seperate arrest warrants. The Arraignment Judge will sort-it out (wither combine the warrants into one, or throw one of them out).

So the next question is - why do the authorities do this. To make sure that the arrest is fully legal so that the guy can't get off on a technicallity. If the warrant only mentioned "malice and forethought" and the jury decides that he had no malice and forethought then he can technically get away with murder... of course before his trial starts the DA will also probably charge him with 2nd degree murder, manslaughter, and other various forms of charges related to killing a person just to cover even more of the legal bases.

[sgdp]

what took them soooooooooo long?

They had a lot of evidence they couldn't use because of Illinois law.

Credit where it's due, Blagojevich and the IL legislature helped turn this case around by, effectively, allowing hearsay in certain cases.

Basically, one of the testimonies was from Stacy's priest. Stacy (missing 4th wife) told him about Drew's murder of Savio. Since it's possible that Stacy was killed because she began to talk, the IL law was passed allowing such hearsay as the priest (now the only source for that story alive) to testify.

[LizFire]

Illinios passed that law after the Wisconsin supreme court heard the case regarding Mark Jensen.

Jensen was accused of murdering his wife, and one of the main pieces of evidence against him was a note the dead wife wrote and gave to a neighbor with the "if anything happens to me give this to the police" instruction (apparently she wrote the note after seeing a strange entry in her husbands day planner that lead her to believe she might kill her - she also included a picture of the dayplanner in the envelope to the neighbor).

Anyway, Jensen and his lawyer were fighting the note saying it should not be admitted since Jensen could not face his accuser (the wife he killed). Wisconsin supreme court said basically that if a Judge believes that it is more likely that not that the accused killed the alleged victim that the evidence could be used. The jury of course still has to believe that the accused is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt once it hears the evidence (and in this case, Jensen was found guilty).

But the case set a precident that allows letters, statements, journals, etc... made by the deceased victim to be brought into court (despite the law that the accused has the right to face their accuser) if a Judge decides that the other evidence in the case makes it more likely that not (the standard of proof in a civil trial not a criminal trial) that the defendant is the person who likely killed that accuser -- the killer being the one who took away the possibility of being able to face the person who is accusing them of murder.

It's an end run around the rights of the defendant according to some. According to others it's fair since the defendant is the likely one who took away his/her own right to face that accuser (by killing them).

It's interesting case law, and I am curious to see how it plays out in the Drew Peterson case because the Judge has to decide that he is the likely killer of Stacey when he will be facing a murder trail for the death of Kathleen. That puts an extra level of "interesting" to this case in my opinion.

[smyrna]

Let the games begin.

[traditional_woman]

Bout time...

[Paul31]

It will be a circus alright. I had found this little gem a few days ago. Dennis Hof of the Bunnyranch claims it was him that helped nabbed Drew Peterson. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30648628/