The Maverick Conservative

This a continuation (in the spirit of Socrates) of the (mainly fictional, although not entirely) dialogue between my mother and myself.  The first part was posted on Saturday, and this is part IV.  You need to read the first three parts.  As previously stated, this is not meant to be a defense of Drew Peterson, but rather an indictment of the way the media has now become the primary vehicle of back fence gossip in this country (as it has become the primary vehicle for the "politics of personal destruction").  This entry delves into the specific media exesses in trasing the character of Drew Peterson (even if he is guilty as sin, which is pretty likely):

S:  Haven't you seen the multiple surveys that purport to show that more than 50% of all men have cheated on their wives (even though most don't kill one or more wives)?

M:  Sure I have.

S:  Don't you agree, then, that wheter Drew Peterson cheated on wives 1, 2, and 3 has NOTHING to do with whether he killed wife no. 3 or wife no. 4?

M:  Well, yes, but it is juicy gossip.  Besides, the media has to go into the character of Drew Peterson?

S:  Haven't you LISTENED (see part III, and previous entries)?   Have I not shown you that overall "character" is IRRELEVANT to whether a person committed a specific act--the law (CORRECTLY) says that a peson's character cannot generally be used as evidence that the person committed a specific criminal act?

D.  (guest appearance by FEMINIST younger daughter:  Men are scum.

S:  (directed again to mother, as desperately tries to keep younger daughter out of it):  Isn't that the whole point of this character assassination that the media is doing on Drew Peterson, and regularly does these days (including in the Duke rape case)?  Isn't the whole idea to get ratings with back fence gossip, rather than facts, which does nothing but suggest to the public that being "scum" makes you GUILTY of a crime (absolutely NOT true, and an EVIL concept)?

M:  That may be true, but the media has dug up a lot of stuff on Drew Peterson.

S:  Do you mean like that DISGRACEFUL interview Greta van Susteren had with a former STEPDAUGHTER of Peterson--a daughter of one of the first two wives?

M:  Well, that one was a little over the top.

S: Remember that I watched that "interview" at your house (where you oftenwatch van Susteren, while I never do?  Remember how the stepdaughter said Drew Peterson was too STRICT; mean to her mother; and cheated on her mother?  Remember how the whole family thought the intereview--heavily HYPED as an "exclusive"--was STUPID, in terms of showing ANYTHJING about the fate of wives 3 and 4?

M:  I agree that interview was pretty weak.

S:  You were divorced, weren't you?

M: Yes, from your father.   But I have told you over and over that it is FALSE for you to blame the way you turned out on a "broken home".  You were an ADULT, and in the ARMY, when the divorce occurred.

S:  Let us not bring me into this.  Did my father not "push" you, and treat you badly, on occasion (verbally and physically)--maybe even threaten you?

M:  Yes, but he never really HURT me.

S:  Are not Drew Peterson's wife no. 1 and wife no. 2, still ALIVE, as is a former fiance?

M:  Yes, but...

S:  Did Drew Peterson ever really HURT any of his four wives, OR his fiance' (aside from the question of whether he KILED the last two)?

M:  No, but...

S:  If you go to ANY divorced wife in America, are the odds not pretty good that the wife can come up with examples of what she considers abuse and threats by the husband--and often what really were abuse and threats?

D:  Men are scum--S: I told you to keep out of this; remember that YOUR husband (still her husband) yelled at you in a public resturant in Hawaii:  "I hope your plane crashes"--D:  He didn't ean it--S:   Maybe, or maybe not, but the question was for my mother:

M:   I guess most divorced women will have some bad things to say abut their divorced husband, if you ask them.

S:  Therefore, what SENSE does it make to go to Drew Peterson's first two wives, and ask for examples of how he treated them badly?  Is this not just CHARACTER ASSASSINATION--with biased "witnesses" yet?  Is this not just back fence gossip?

M:   Yes, but it is interesting.

S:  It is interesting only in the sense that back fence gossip is interesting, right:  It is a way of UNFAIRLY trashing someone's character, when that has NOTHING to do with the "news"?

M:  Maybe.

S:  Did Drew Peterson BEAT wives 1 and 2 (or even 3 or 4, before their apparent exit from this Earth)?

M:  No, but he threatened and stalked and was jealous.  He abused them.

D:  Men are scum--S:  I told you to keep OUT of this.

S:  Correct me if I am wrong:  Are not wives 1 and 2 ALIVE?

M:  Well, yes.

S:  Does that not suggest, to the extent anything is suggested by this gossip on Peterson's relatonship with wives 1 and 2, that Peterson did NOT kill wives 3 and 4?  After all, he obviously knew how to move on to another relationship.

M:  Well, maybe.  But he may have snapped.

S:  EXACTLY why this gossip proves NOTHING.  Isn't it true that he may have snapped, even if he was apparently a PERFECT husband to all of his wives?

M:  Well, I guess that is true.

S:  In fact, it is true that almost ALL husbands and wives fight (like you younger daughter, who better keep out of this dialogue) and her still husband, isn't it?   And is it not guaranteed that a DIVORECED husband an wife had some pretty significant fights.

M:  Yes, but men should not abuse women.

D: --S:  Don't you DARE!

S:  The question is whether there are any FACTS to support that Drew Peterson killed his wives.  Back fence gossip is NOT "facts".  It does NOT provide the public any true "ifomation" RELEVANT to the issue of murder. 

M:  But what if Drew Peterson regularly beat up all of his wives severely, and put them in the hospital?

S:  That WOULD be evidence--admissible under an EXCEPTION to the rule that character, and other acts of bad character, do NOT provide evidencd that a person committed a future, specific act.   A PATTERN of conduct is admissible, and does tend to show that a person acted in accordance with that pattern (modus operandi).  However, DID Drew Peterson put any of his wives in the hospital?

M:  Well, no.

S:  Did he do anything to wives 1 and 2 which was similar to what happened to 3?

M:  Well, no.

S:  You do see how STUPID Greta van Susteren's interview with the fiance' was, don't you?

M:  How do you know about that?

S:  I happened to be watcing Hannity anc Colmes ons some political thing I was interested in, and Greta HYPED her interview with the fiance'.  I though it sounded ridiculous, and stayed on just to see if I were right: I was.  (Editor'snote:  Greta van Susteren is featured here only because I AVOID all of the others, on other networks, who are at least as bad--sometimes seeing van Susteren because my mother watches her, and because I sometimes see her promos on Fox, even though I don't watch her program).

S:  Don't even you see that it is nothing but character assassination to put on an interview with a former fiance' that Drew Peterson was possessive, jealous, and pushed her down once, after she left him (the MONSTER)?  So she was "afraid" of him.  She is ALIVE, is she not?  And he never HURT her, did he?   HOW does that suggest he is a murderer?

M:   I guess it doesn't.  But a police friend of Peterson talked her out of filing charges.

S:  You do realize that the "charge" would only be simple assault--a midemeanor?

M:  Yes.  But it shows the police buddies were covering up for Peterson.

S:  Are you sure that merely suggesting to a woman that it is a waste of time to file criminal charges when she is merely pushed down, without injury, is a major cover up?

M:  But they covered up more than that. 

S:  That is actually an issue independent of the allleged murders.  Do you understand that one of the EVILS of this media character assassination is that REAL issues get lost.  It IS an issue that the media should pursue, with FACTS, as to whether the police covered up a crime with regard to wife no. 3, or covered up for a fellow officer on domestic abuse.  That is true, WHETER OR NOT DREW PETERSON KILLED ANYONE.  You do understand that by concentrating on back fence gossip, the media lets real issues get lost is the slime?

M:  I do sort of understand that, but the media has to fill the time.

S:  So you do realize that this is not real "news" (we are now into almost a verbatim conversation I really had with my mother)?

M:  Of course I realize that.  This is ENTERTAINMENT.

S:  You don't think that there is something wrong with the media doing "entertainment" that trashes people unfairly--nothing but back fence gossip of the worst kind?

M.  Hey.  Back fence gossip is FUN.  Why do you think that it was spread over back fences so much, before we had cable news to do it for us (to fill up all of that time)?

S:  Q.E.D.  This is EVIL stuff.  It IS "backfence gossip", with all of the EVILS of back fence gossip.  What it is NOT is "news", or "information" (of a relevant kind).  One day another Richard Jewell (Atlanta Olympic bombing) will come along, and he will OWN several networks (maybe almost the whole media).  Jewell was innocent.  Peterson is probablyl not.  That means Peterson can't sue (much too dangerous to him).  But someday someone will come along who the media trashes, and then there is absolute PROOF that the person is completely innocent.   SAYING that "we were merely SPECULATING"--as meida people do now in an absolute admission of how EVIL this is--will NT save the media from a major lawsuit.  I say that as a lawyer.  The media will NOT get away with a "we are allowed to speculate" "defense if a truly innocent person comes along.   The Duke rape case players COULD have gone after some media people, but they had some "target" defendants that are EASIER targets than the media.  If the media keeps going how it is now, however, evetually a case will come up where NOTHING will save them. 

|  Add to del.icio.us |  digg this