The Maverick Conservative

One of the subjects upon which this blog has been conspiciously right, and the disgraceful "news" media (including Fox News) so conspiciously wrong, is Drew Peterson.  Further, this blog has been right in a way that has universal application, and is not jsut relevant to Drew Peterson.

One of the consistent themes of this blog is that the mainstream news media is no longer about FACTS.  When it is not about agenda, it is about rumor, speculaton, and back fence gossip.  One day a cable TV person is going to talk about the evils of "back fence gossip", and God is going to send a thunderbolt to destroy her or him on the spot, or such person will immediately turn to a pillar of salt before our very eyes.  In fact, I will consider it evidence that God does not exist if this does NOT happen.  

As I have further shown, this relatively new, national media trend to SPECULATE on guit and innocence, including PANELS on the subject (with both lawyers and mental health professionals acting UNETHICALLY, in my view), is an EVIL thing.  There is no exuces for it.  It is disgraceful.  If you pay any attention to it, your are encouraging evil.

The Drew Peterson case illustrates all of the above, and I said so at the time--the time when the case was "hot" on cable TV.  you might remember that the media virtually had drew Peterson CONVICTED of murder.  Contrast that with the FACT that he has not yet even been CHARGED with a crime. 

That is because almost all of what cable TV "reported" on Drew Peterson was BACK FENCE GOSSIP (rather than actual facts).  It was disgraceful stuff

Within a few days, all of the FACTS were known.  After tthat, the wall-to-wall cable TV coverage was back fence gossip and speculation.  "Facts" left the building.   These are the actual facts (the SAME actual facts that we know today, which are NOT enough to even charge someone with murder):

1. Wife no. 4 disappeared under susupicious circumstances, and Drew Peterson had no really adequate explanation.  Further, she has not been seen since, and there is no indication of someone OTHER than her husband doing something to her.  Statistically, the spouse is ALWAYS the logical suspect in that situation. 

2.  Wife no. 3 died under suspicious circumstances.  See 1 above as to the statistics on the murderer when a spouse or girlfirend is murdered with no evidence of another killer.  HOWEVER, was wife no. 3 even MURDERED.  The facts are not clear.  The ONE additional piece of reportable "news", instead of speculation and gossip, that appeared later was the exhumantion of the body of wife no. 3.  The subsequent forensic examination by a forensic pathologist HIRED BY THE FAMILY of wife no. 3 was "news", but rather doubtful "news".  It was doubtful because experts HIRED under circumstances where they understand the opinion they are being hired to give are SUSPECT.  They tend to be biased, and not just because they may deliberatedly tailor their results.  There is a natural, psychological tendency to resolve all doubts in favor of the person who is paying you.  I was a personal injury lawyer, and I can absolutely assure you this is true.  However, most of the cable TV, media people were so interested in evil speculation on guilt and innocence, and murder, that they ingored the questions of this NON-INDEPENDENT forensic examination.   The official autopsy seems to still be confidential, and obviously was not sufficient to charge Drew Peterson with murder. 

That is ALL of the facts.  The rest--HUNDREDS OF HOURS of the rest--was SPECULATION, rumor and BACK FENCE GOSSIP.  That includes the gossip about how Drew Peterson treated his wives (all 4 of them), nad alleged HEARSAY about wife no. 4 accusing Peterson of killing wife no. 3 (wife no. 4, of course, not being around to confirm that as any kind of FACT, which made it rank speculation).  As I mentioned at the time, the Constitution guarantees a person the right to confront the witnesses against him.  Does that mean Peterson can get away with killing wife no. 3 by killing wife no. 4 (as the only witness that could convict him).  Of course it does--PROVIDED there is not enough other evidece that Peterson killed wife no. 3.  Remember, wife no. 3 did NOT "disappear".  Her body was found.  In fact, one of those indefensible SUPITIES of the media was the continued emphasis on the body being found DROWNED in a bathtub without water in it.  As I said at the time:  SO WHAT.  That is just as much a problem to explain in a MURDER, as it is in suicide or accident (maybe even more of a proble.   If there were enough water there for a murderer to drown wife no. 3, why would there not have been enough water for suicide or accident? 

Nope.  The FACTS justified maybe limited coverage for a few days.  They amounted to no more than that two wives appeared to have died mysteriously, although we can't even be absolutely sure that wife no. 4 is dead.   That is certainly enough to look hard as the husband, but is is NOT enough to even charge him with murder. 

Now there was some reason to look at the "investigation" of the death of wife no. 3 (a legitimate story).  There was some reason to report, as a MINOR fact, that Drew Peterson allegedly disposed of a drum, which could have contained a body, that night.  However, that relatively insignificant fact (unless the body is actually FOUND) was OVERHYPED with the usual SPECULATION and gossip.

As I said (see the several entries on the Drew Peterson case in this blog--ALL of which have lproven to be absolutely correct), if I had to GUESS, I would guess that Drew Peterson killed at least ONE of his wives (note that TWO did survive, which indicates Peterson was perfectly capable of getting rid of a wife without killing her).  However, I don't have to guess.  Further, it is an EVIL thing for the media to GUESS as to murderers.  It is even more EVIL to keep dredging up Dr. Sam Sheppard type GOSSIP in order to convict someone of murder in the media (when such GOSSIP would never be admissible in court, because it is NOT RELIABLE). 

As readers should know by now, this blog is consistently right.  However, there are few subjects upon which I am so obviously right as this one.  Virtually the entire hundreds of hours of coverage of the Drew Peterson case was WORTHLESS.  The only part that had any value at all was the exposure of the questionalbe investigaton of the death of wife no. 3.  There were no more FACTS showing that Drew Peterson killed a wife AFTER the extensive media "investigation" than there were right after the disappearance was first discovered.  Now the exuhumation of wife no. 3 SHOULD have provided more FACTS, but insteand merely resulted in a media hyped, SUSPECT examination by a biased expert.  It is doubtful that expert's testimony would even be allwoed in a criminal trial.  If I were a prosecutor, I would not use it, except merely to bolster an INDEPENDENT expert with no axe to grind. 

Thus, it is no surprise to me that Drew Peterson has not been charged.  It IS a surpise to me that he keeps doing his best to GET h;imself charged.  His attorney seems to be a similar publicity hound.  Drew Peterson should have SHUT UP, and reamined shut up.  But that is the thing about criminals.  They often get themselves convicted eventually.  Drew Peterson could still manage that, or some actual FACTS may come out.  

As to wife no. 3 for example, the prosecution has to prove not only that she was murdered, but that Drew Peterson did it.  The evidence is obviously not that clear, or he would have been charged by now.  Maybe they are working on nailing down the evidence so that it will be enough.  Who knows?  The media certainly does not.  And Peterson will NOT be convicted of killng wife no. 4 unless either the body is found, or a DEFINITE explanation of how she was killed and what happened to the body is produced (that is, with FACTUAL EVIDENCE, and not speculation).  Or Drew Peterson will have to confess (to authorities or someone else).

Again, this is not really about Drew Peterson.  If he killed even one wife, it will be good if he can be eventually convicted.  This is about an EVIL media that has gone totally out of control in "reporting" on crime and legal proceedings.  You should regard them with the same congempt I do, and pay no attention to this rampant speculation, rumor, and back fence gossip. 

|  Add to del.icio.us |  digg this