The Maverick Conservative

This is a continuation of the (partially fictional) Socratic dialogue between my mother and myself on the evils of media SPECULATION on crimes and criminals (see Saturday's entry for first installment, and note that two of the entries today are related:

S:  Did Stacy Peterson kill Drew Peterson's third wife?

M:  Are you nuts? 

S:  Well, does not all of this talk about Stacy knowing things Drew Peterson's alleged killing of his third wife make her look pretty BAD.  Not only was Stacy going with a married man, but SHE had a motive for killig the third wife.  And SHE could have been setting up an alibi for HERSELF.

M:  Don't confuse me.  I don't even know now WHEN Stacy married Drew Peterson:  whether it was before or after a divorce from the third wife--I don't remember whether the third wife was still married at the time she died.  I thought she was i a divorce proceeding, but I am confused (editor's note:  a typical state for someone trying to get actual facts from today's media).  But Stacy was one of those young girls who don't know better, and she was AREAID.

S:  Well, she could not have been THAT afraid, could she?  She either married Drew Peterson after thinking he may have killed his third wife, or stayed with him for YEARS after that.

M:  Don't confuse me.

S:  And is it not true that the only indication we have that Stacy was AFRAID of Drew Peterson is HEARSAY evidence.  Stacy is not around to testify.

M:  Maybe that is so, but that is the point:  Drew Peterson killed Stacy.  It is not Drew Peterson who is missing.

S:  You are probably right that it is rank speculation that Stacy may have been involved in the killing of Drew Peterson's third wife (hardly THAT more speculative than what is being done with regard to Drew Peterson), and it is true that it is Stacy who is missing, with a pretty good likelihood that she has come to grief.  However, HOW did Drew Peterson kill Stacy?

M:  How do you expect me to know that?

S:  Read the blog entry today on Natalee Holloway.  You are aware, are you not, that in a criminal case the state has to prove the "body of the crime" beyond a reasonable doubt?

M:  You know I only rarely read your blog. It is boring.  Do you mean that you have to have a body to charge someone with a crime? 

S:  You really should listen, and read the blog.  You don't need an actual bocy, but you have to PROVE a crime occurred--with admissible evidence, and the law has determined inadmissible evidence to be UNRELIABLE, amounting to no real evidence at all--as well as WHO committed the crime.  In the case of Drew Peterson, do you know of any EVIDENCE as to HOW he killed Stacy, or ANY of the circumstances of how the crime occurred?

M:  There is that blue barel.

S:  What happened to that alleged barrel? 

M:  Only Drew Peterson knows.

S:  So he had to have HELP to get the blue barrel loaded, but then he was able to DISPOSE of it (bury it?  throw it in the water?) ALONE?

M:  Don't confuse me.

S:  Has ANYONE even said that they saw an actual BODY, in the blue barrel or otherwise?  For that matter, has ANYONE seen Stacy DEAD?

M:  Don't confuse me.  Besides, no one has seen Stacy alive. 

S:  You do remember that it is up to the STATE to PROVE that a crime occurred, AND who did it?

M:  I know.   But he killed his third wife too.

S:  Did he now.  Let us admit that TWO wives POSSIBLY dying unde mysterious circumstances is two wives too many--and at least one wife too many.  But we don't know that Stacy is DEAD, do we? 

M:  I am sure she is dead.

S:  If someone had looked in the barrel and seen a dead body, maybe we could conclude that Drew Peterson murdered her, even though we would still not know HOW she died.   But don't you think it is just too MANY assumptions (such as Peterson's wives who appear to have met foul play) to convict someone of murder when no one has even SEEN a body?

M:  Probably your are right, everyone agrees you probably are (on TV--I would never take your word for it).  But they can still get him for killing his third wife?

S:  Can they?  Before getting to that, you do understand that it really is impossible to charge Peterson with killing his FOURTH WIFE (Stacy)--at least under present circumstances--without charging Peterson with killing his third wife  FIRST.  In other words, you are not going to be able to bootstrap a dead THIRD WIFE into a conviction on the missing fourth wife, unless you can PROVE he killed the thrid wife?   You can't just try Peterson for the missing fourth wife, and clain his NOT MISSING third wife died under "mysterious circumstances"?

M:  I realize that.  Unless they find Stacy, or more than they have, they are going to have to convict him of killing his THIRD WIFE.

S:  Okay.  At least we are getting SOMEWHERE.  Isn't it true that Drew Peterson was not living with Wife no. 3 at the time she was murdered?

M:  That is what I understand. I think he was mainly with Stacy.  That is the point of these phone calls Stacy made that night.  Peterson claims he was home with STacy, but she tried to call him that night.

S:  Does ANYONE place Drew Peterson at the murder scene of the murder of wife no. 3 at or near the time she died?

M:  No, but his alibi has been discredited.

S:  What alibi?  Is not Stacy his alibi?  With her gone, he has no alibi, does he?

M:  That is jsut another reason to kill her.

S.  Maybe, but there are more than enough MOTIVES for Drew Peterson to kill Stacy (there almost always are with an unexplained spouse death, which is why the spouse is the first person looked at)?  You do realize that adding MOTIVES does not help you at all in convicting Peterson of killing wife no. 3?

M:  Yes, but the an autopsy showed she was murdered.

S:  HOW was she murdered?

M:  She was drowned by holding her under water, and somebody hit/beat her.

S:  Did ANYONE see Drew Peterson arond when this supposedly occurred?

M:  Not that I know of.  But his alibi is now good.

S:  You do understand that a person does not NEED an alibi--that it is up to the state to PROVE a person guilty, and not up to the person to prove his innocence?

M:  Yes, I understand that.  But Stacy is missing too.

S:  Are you aware that yo can't use one alleged crime to prove a DIFFERENT crime, uneless a PATTERN of conduct is shown?

M:  Well, they were both his wives.

S:  But we don't know WHAT happened to STacy, do we?  How can there be a pattern when we don't even know what happened to Stacy.  It is not like TWO women disappeared in blue barrels.

M:  I bet they will let Stacy be brought up.

S:  Maybe they will, but it is certainly not a sure thing.  And if that is ALL you have against Peterson on wife no.3, it is hard to say that is "beyond a reasonable doubt".

M:  They have all of that stuff Peterson has done.

S:  Did you know that NONE of that stuff even goes to prove AT ALL that Drew Peterson killed Stacy?

M:  Well, I admit a lot of it is specualation and gossip, but it shows his character.

End of Part II.  Socratic dialogue continued in part III tomorrow.

|  Add to del.icio.us |  digg this