Websleuths
Go Back   Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community > Missing!! > Missing but not forgotten Discussion > Stacy Peterson

Notices

Stacy Peterson Missing from her Bolingbrook, IL home since Oct. 28, 2007. Her husband, Drew, has been convicted of killing his 3rd wife, Kathleen Savio.


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old 01-03-2008, 11:06 PM
DeltaDawn DeltaDawn is offline
Inactive
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,845
LOL SS you are completely right there..one does get what they pay for..Drew got exactly what he deserved for free..someone that thinks and acts like him..but is probably not his best representative in this case.
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 01-04-2008, 01:28 AM
gitana1's Avatar
gitana1 gitana1 is offline
Verified Attorney
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Anaheim, CA
Posts: 9,010
Someone here asked whether hearsay is still hearsay if there is evidence (some sort of record) to back it up. Yes, it would still be hearsay. The records themselves would be hearsay as well. Hearsay is, simply, an out of court statement offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted. For example, one cannot say during testimony, "Jason hit Amanda. I know this because Amanda told me." What Amanda told the speaker is a hearsay statement because it was made out of court and the speaker is offering it during testimony to prove the truth of the matter asserted - the truth of what Amanda said, that Jason hit her. A record or document is also hearsay because it is a "statement" made out of court, if it is offered to prove the truth of the matter the document asserts. So phone records are hearsay because they document certain calls made at certain times. That a certain call was made, according to the document, is the "statement" for purposes of the hearsay rule. The document was created out of the courtroom, so it is an out of court statement. If the party offering the records is trying to offer the phone records in court in order to show that a certain call was made, then the record is an out of court statement "offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted". Now, if someone was offering the records to show why they reacted a certain way, then the records are not hearsay. For example, if John presents the records in court to show that he found these records and based on the records, believed a certain call had been made, and so he did something, then the records may not be hearsay. As some have posted, there are many exceptions to the hearsay rule and tons of ways to get by the hearsay rule. Simplified, generally an out of court statement made by a party opponent is aot hearsay because it is considered an admission. I did not read the cases cited above, but in general, if a person is determined to be dead, then he or she becomes an unavailable witness whose statements can be offered to the court. That is an hearsay exception. Thus, if it is shown that Stacy is dead, her statements to the pastor can likely come in to court. I hope that all makes sense.
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 01-04-2008, 01:47 AM
gitana1's Avatar
gitana1 gitana1 is offline
Verified Attorney
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Anaheim, CA
Posts: 9,010
As to the defamation argument, I was very troubled to read all the posts warning about being sued for defamation and I was even more troubled to see the effect it had on posters on the Stacy Peterson site. I get the sense that the defamation posts were made to scare and possibly to stifle speech, rather than in an effort to protect the posters (Sorry Wudge, that's my opinion!) The statements that there are tons of defamation suits across the country seems misleading. There are tons of all sorts of suits across the country. That does not mean they have merit. As someone posted here, it is very hard to prove a defamation suit. A guy like DP is unlikely to ever file such a suit against on-line posters because he must first prove that what they wrote is a lie and if successful, he must then prove that the statement damaged his reputation is a quanitfiable way. How the heck can he prove that such a statement damaged him instead of his own conduct? He cannot. I sincerely hope posters will not allow themselves to be intimidated further by these kinds of posts. This is a sleuthing site in which people post opinions, brainstorm and vent. And in doing so, they are chipping away at the evil that skulks through this world, and helping to make this world a safer, better place, one post at a time. I wish more people would speak out against inhumanity and work to end it by solving and exploring cases the way the posters here do. This is an intelligent bunch that I think slows the spread of violence. As a mostly lurker, I am often astounded by the passion, hardwork and creativity of the posters. Do not let someone who may have an ulterior motive or other negative agenda stifle you!
P.S. This is not meant to be legal advice.
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 01-04-2008, 03:48 AM
SeriouslySearching's Avatar
SeriouslySearching SeriouslySearching is offline
always. SS~
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 33,476
Quote:
Originally Posted by gitana1 View Post
As to the defamation argument, I was very troubled to read all the posts warning about being sued for defamation and I was even more troubled to see the effect it had on posters on the Stacy Peterson site. I get the sense that the defamation posts were made to scare and possibly to stifle speech, rather than in an effort to protect the posters (Sorry Wudge, that's my opinion!) The statements that there are tons of defamation suits across the country seems misleading. There are tons of all sorts of suits across the country. That does not mean they have merit. As someone posted here, it is very hard to prove a defamation suit. A guy like DP is unlikely to ever file such a suit against on-line posters because he must first prove that what they wrote is a lie and if successful, he must then prove that the statement damaged his reputation is a quanitfiable way. How the heck can he prove that such a statement damaged him instead of his own conduct? He cannot. I sincerely hope posters will not allow themselves to be intimidated further by these kinds of posts. This is a sleuthing site in which people post opinions, brainstorm and vent. And in doing so, they are chipping away at the evil that skulks through this world, and helping to make this world a safer, better place, one post at a time. I wish more people would speak out against inhumanity and work to end it by solving and exploring cases the way the posters here do. As a mostly lurker, I am often astounded by the passion, hardwork and creativity of the posters. Do not let someone who may have an ulterior motive or other negative agenda stifle you!
P.S. This is not meant to be legal advice.
Oh, I like this person! Thank You! I was one of those honestly worried about everything I ever said...even if I did try to be cautious. I almost stopped posting here or anywhere! I was terrified! (People have been nice enough to point out the realistic points already!)

Brainstorm. It IS what we try to do. Put many people together that try to think in a situation and then into what I call a "think tank". The police are not able to to spend all of the time and money doing what we do. We spend days and weeks going over material they might have overlooked or skimmed. If we can find ONE thing that could help...isn't it what we are there for?! The truth IS why we are here. We want justice for women like Stacy, Lisa, and so many more. (We could be such a compliment to LE's own taskforce...and someday they will appreciate us.)

"This is an intelligent bunch that I think slows the spread of violence." Gitana 1

I like the way you think and you have the knowledge to back it up. Thank you for taking the time to post your thoughts. It means a lot to people like me.
__________________
"WE SEEK FOR THE TRUTH. WE SEEK JUSTICE.
THE COURTS REQUIRE IT. THE VICTIMS CRY FOR IT
AND GOD DEMANDS IT!"

A quote spray painted on the wall by search
and rescue workers, Team 5, at the OKC Bombing site 4-19-1995.



What I post are my opinions only.

Last edited by SeriouslySearching; 01-04-2008 at 06:12 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 01-04-2008, 04:38 AM
mysteriew's Avatar
mysteriew mysteriew is offline
A diamond in process
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 23,119
Gitana1, thank you so much. We were all trying to say that but you did it so well and said it much clearer.
__________________
Just when I think that I have seen the most depraved things a human can do to another human, somebody posts a new story...........

Why is it that when a custodial parent fails to provide for a child it is called neglect and is a criminal matter. But when a non custodial parent fails to provide it is called failure to support and is a civil matter?


"Just when the caterpillar thought its world was over, it became a butterfly" ~ Michelle Knight
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 01-04-2008, 10:40 AM
DeltaDawn DeltaDawn is offline
Inactive
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,845
Thank you Gitana1 ! You have helped to light the darkness on the issues of slander and on the hearsay testimony. Hope you'll stay aboard for our lively discussions.

Last edited by DeltaDawn; 01-04-2008 at 01:35 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old 01-27-2008, 09:43 AM
DeltaDawn DeltaDawn is offline
Inactive
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,845
I have a question about the Will Coounty Grand Jury in relation to this case.

Will the same jurors continue on this GJ until they come to a decision? I read at the Will CO GJ site and Ill GJ site that Will CO requires a GJ juror
to meet once a week for 4 months once they are called to serve. Does this mean that they will soon have to recruit new jurors..or will they require that the same jurors continue to serve? And what if someone says I cannot because I have travel plans or an opertion scheduled during that time due to not being able to do so in the past 4 months? Or if they start the next sessions with new jurors how to they get them up to speed so speak on what has transpired in the GJ so far? I just don't think that would be possible given a four month period with so many witnesses already called. The new jurors would possibly have different questions for the witnesses and I could see this going on and on every 4 months if that was so.

Thoughts....knowledge anyone?
Reply With Quote
  #58  
Old 01-27-2008, 10:51 AM
Wudge Wudge is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 6,480
Quote:
Originally Posted by DeltaDawn View Post
I have a question about the Will Coounty Grand Jury in relation to this case.

Will the same jurors continue on this GJ until they come to a decision? I read at the Will CO GJ site and Ill GJ site that Will CO requires a GJ juror
to meet once a week for 4 months once they are called to serve. Does this mean that they will soon have to recruit new jurors..or will they require that the same jurors continue to serve? And what if someone says I cannot because I have travel plans or an opertion scheduled during that time due to not being able to do so in the past 4 months? Or if they start the next sessions with new jurors how to they get them up to speed so speak on what has transpired in the GJ so far? I just don't think that would be possible given a four month period with so many witnesses already called. The new jurors would possibly have different questions for the witnesses and I could see this going on and on every 4 months if that was so.

Thoughts....knowledge anyone?
Normally, jurors would serve until the county discharges them. Though local procedures might differ.

Grand Juries are a dying institution. Almost half the states have abandoned Grand Juries in favor of preliminary hearings, which I strongly favor.
Reply With Quote
  #59  
Old 01-27-2008, 11:07 AM
Pharlap Pharlap is offline
Former Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Chicago, Illinois
Posts: 3,265
Talking

Quote:
Originally Posted by chicoliving View Post

ENOUGH of the singling out of members. The next post that is about another poster I will be arranging some vacations from the board. Either edit your posts yourself or I will be deleting them.

Thank YOU......
Reply With Quote
  #60  
Old 01-28-2008, 03:05 AM
Leila's Avatar
Leila Leila is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Southern California
Posts: 12,447
Quote:
Originally Posted by DeltaDawn View Post
I have a question about the Will Coounty Grand Jury in relation to this case.

Will the same jurors continue on this GJ until they come to a decision? I read at the Will CO GJ site and Ill GJ site that Will CO requires a GJ juror
to meet once a week for 4 months once they are called to serve. Does this mean that they will soon have to recruit new jurors..or will they require that the same jurors continue to serve? And what if someone says I cannot because I have travel plans or an opertion scheduled during that time due to not being able to do so in the past 4 months? Or if they start the next sessions with new jurors how to they get them up to speed so speak on what has transpired in the GJ so far? I just don't think that would be possible given a four month period with so many witnesses already called. The new jurors would possibly have different questions for the witnesses and I could see this going on and on every 4 months if that was so.

Thoughts....knowledge anyone?
If I remember correctly, this grand jury began their task the week after or two weeks after Stacy disappeared. I agree that it would be difficult to bring in new jurors at this juncture as there's been so many witnesses that have already testified. It would be difficult to bring new grand jurors up to speed.

I wonder if the grand jury includes alternates, who have been there and listened to all the witness testimony, and who could be seated as a grand juror if someone on the grand jury can't continue for another four months. In the time since this grand jury began meeting, it's very possible for a juror to become ill or for some reason is unable to attend a session or two of the proceedings, so there must be something in place to cover this possibility.
Reply With Quote
  #61  
Old 01-28-2008, 09:29 AM
Wudge Wudge is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 6,480
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leila View Post
If I remember correctly, this grand jury began their task the week after or two weeks after Stacy disappeared. I agree that it would be difficult to bring in new jurors at this juncture as there's been so many witnesses that have already testified. It would be difficult to bring new grand jurors up to speed.

I wonder if the grand jury includes alternates, who have been there and listened to all the witness testimony, and who could be seated as a grand juror if someone on the grand jury can't continue for another four months. In the time since this grand jury began meeting, it's very possible for a juror to become ill or for some reason is unable to attend a session or two of the proceedings, so there must be something in place to cover this possibility.

There are no alternate jurors. The Illinois version of a Grand Jury is only composed of sixteen citizens instead of twenty-three citizens. All of the jurors do not need to be present to obtain an indictment. The presence of but 12 jurors would be sufficient to conduct business.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


© Copyright Websleuths 1999-2012 New To Site? Need Help?
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:05 AM.

Advertisements

Pre-Order Imperfect Justice: Prosecuting Casey Anthony today!