Drew Peterson is an arrogant SOB. You know it (if you saw anything about him at all). I know it. He and Joran Van der Sloot have one major thing in common: They failed to SHUT UP, after any sane, decent man would have done so. Further, there is a good possibility--"probability" is not too strong a word--that Drew Peterson killed both wife no.3 and wife no. 4.
However, the LEGAL case against Drew Peterson for killing wife no. 3 is WEAK. There is really NO case--until a body is found or the circumstances of her death proven--against Drew Peterson for killing wife no.4. Remember Mike Nifong? He was the Duke rape case prosecutor who overstated his case n the media, and was disgraced. Who holds the MEDIA accountable for doing what Mike Nifong did, and much worse? Remember "The Fugitive", and the one-armed man? That was based on a real case of a doctor CONVICTED in the media--mainly for being a lousy human being. The Supreme Court eventually reversed his conviction based on publicity that made it impossible for him to get a fair trial.
Am I saying that it is an EVIL thing for the media to conduct a media trial of criminal cases? Yep. You got it right the first time. That is exactly what I am saying. Nancy Grace is beyond evil in the way she treats criminal cases as a subject of media opinion. I will go further: I consider it UNETHICAL for an attorney to go on television and express an opinion as to guilt or innocence of a crime. I further consider it UNETHICAL for a mental health "professional" to go on television and make mental health diagnoses, and give mental health "opinions", based on "news" reports. By definition, a person is INNOCENT (not guilty) in this country, until proven guilty IN A COURT OF LAW. The media iin this country are violating this principle every single day, and they are committing EVIL in so doint. It should amuse you that Richard Nixon was once criticized (by the media) for making a statement assuming the guilt of CHARLES MANSON (lol). Yep. Along with everything else, the media people are the worst hypocrites to ever walk the Earth.
Don't people have a right to an opinion? NOPE. This is the evil fallacy involved here. Yes, you have a "right" to a PRIVATE opinion, and to discuss that opinion with your friends. You do NOT have a right to a PUBLIC OPINION--trying to persuade the people of this country to violate one of this country's fundamental principles. Yes, the media should present the FACTS. If those facts lead to a conclusion of guilt, so be it. The media can even question the failure of prosecutors to pursue a case for which the evidence exists. That is a valid concern of te public. However, it is an EVIL thing for the media to conduct a CAMPAIGN to get someone convicted of a crime. That is what Geraldo Rivera--and others--are doing with regard to Drew Peterson. You might not remember, but I do, that the media started off trying to convict the Duke rape case students of RACISM--to bootstrap that into proof of rape (which it was not, although the media sort of went overboard the other way once their coverage turned--leading a campaign to discredit the complainant and no longer bringing up the alleged "racism"). On crimes, the media has NO BUSINESS giving "opinions", or presenting opinions of "experts" as if they mean anything. They could mean something if the "experts" limited themselves to explaining the PROCESS, but that is too "dull" for today's Media. (This disgraceful "coverage" of crimes is one of several reasons that I have often said that Fox News is part of the mainstream media PROBLEM, and not part of the solution).)
You are a kook if: (yes, back to my "you are a kook if:" series)
169. You think it is any easier to explain how a murder victim was drowned in a dry bathtub than it is to explain how an accident victim (or suicide) drowned in a dry bathtub;b.
Yes, I made the mistake of surfing by Geraldo Rivera this weekend. I knew better. So I got to hear Rivera ridicule the idea that Drew Peterson's wife no. 3 accidentally drowned n a dry bathtub. Rivera even had a guest assert that the prosecutor should begin and end the trial of Drew Peterson by ridiculing such an idea (accidental drowning in a dry bathtub). Rivera sat by with a vapid look of approval to this stupidity. Indeed, the mainstream media long ago set the "storyline" (especially on Fox) that the original investigation of the death of wife no. 3 was a farce, because no one would ever accidentally drown in a dry bathtub. POPPYCOCK. Wife no. 3 may have been murdered, but a "dry bathtub" is NO EVIDENCE even that a murder took place.
Let us assume wife no. 3 drowned--which seems to be the case, although the media is usually careful not to confuse you with the FACTS. I continued to watch Geraldo well after I should have broken the TV screen (or changed channels), just to see if I would ever get any FACTS. I did not. I knew no more about the facts of how wife no. 3 had died after the Geraldo Rivera segment than I did before. I digress (not really).
Assume wife no. 3 drowned (and she was not living with drew Peterson at the time--already separated). WHERE? Ia not the bathtub the most reasonable place--whether it is accident or murder? Sure it is. Is Geraldo Rivera really suggesting that Drew Peterson drowned the woman SOMEWHERE ELSE, and them moved her dead body to the bathtub? That is almost impossible to believe. Only a kook like Geraldo Rivera would even consider the possibility---absent affirmative evidence she drowned somewhere else. A "dry bathtub" is NOT such evidence. For example, my own bathtub stopper does not create a perfect seal. The water remains long after I could drown (I point out to you in case I am ever found drowned in a dry bathtub--although in that event I also tell you that SOME WOMAN did it). But in 12 to 24 hours the bathtub is dry. Let us assume the almost impossible--that Drew Peterson drowned/killed wife no. 3 somewhere else, and then moved her to the bathtub to simulate that she drowned there. Do you not see that there HAD to be water in the bathtub? Even Drew Peterson is not dumb enough to try to simulate drowning in a DRY BATHTUB. I am 100% convinced that there was water in the bathtub. What happened to that water is the same question, whether it was accident or murder (and really, wherever she was killed). You are a KOOK if you believe that a "dry bathtub" proves anything--absent other facts that make it relevant (which I have never heard). You can't drown in a dry bathtub, but you CAN drown in a bathtub that afterward becomes dry. You can also have a non-drowning accident that leaves you dead (although not of drowning) in a dry bathtub.
170 (continuing my "you are a kook if:" series): You are Geraldo Rivera.
Remember Al Capone's vault, and the shameless promotion by Geraldo of that non-event? I rest my case. The guy proved himself a permanent kook long ago. Some people are just kooks on isolated things that push their buttons. I have correctly labeled myself a kook for my--correct, as kooks can rarely be right--assertion that it was a mistake to ever give women the vote. I have said that my mother is a kook: on several things, but especially her continuing assertion that Obama is a Muslim (which should be the least of your worries about Obama). But, with Geraldo, you get total kook--the kind of kook where his picture appears next to the word in the dictionary.
What is the real evidence that Drew Peterson killed wife no. 3. Oh, come on. You know this one. It is the disappearance of WIFE NO. $. Yes, they are trying to railroad Drew Peterson (hard to feel to sorry for him, but it is the kind of thing that leads to trouble and violation of YOUR Constitutional rights) by bootstrapping HEARSAY "evidence" from the grave. You might remember that the Constitution guarantees people the right to confront the witnesses against them. But the real problem is that the prosecutor will surely NOT be able to use the disappearance of wife no. 4 as evidence of the murder of wife no. 3. Yet, that is the only convincing reason--on the "evidence" I know about, or Geraldo and the media have told me--to be convinced that Drew Peterson killed wife no. 3.
Yes, based solely on what the media has told me, I--as an "expert" lawyer for 30 plus years before my retirement--would vote to ACQUIT Drew Peterson. That is not because I believe him "innocent", but because I believe it is the state's burden to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The ONLY question that is relevant is whether the state can do that. My personal opinion--and that of Geraldo Rivera and the people brought forward by uor media--are IRRELEVANT to that question. We should not be seeing those opinions, and that we see so much of them is a truly evil thing. I have, of course, hinted at my personal opinion of whether Drew Peterson "did it", but I have only done so in the context of slamming our media. Otherwise, I have no business asserting my opinion on that ABSTRACT question means anything. Neither I nor the media have any business inflicting our opinions on criminal guilt on the public. It violates one of the very foundations of our system, and trial by media is an EVIL thing (with fully as much, and more, potential for destroying people as the worst of the old-time "back fence gossip").
P.S. Am I really saying that the Mike Nifong clones of the media are WORSE, in their "coverage" of crimes, than the original Mike Nifong--even after fully taking into account the difference in their respective jobs? Ah, you have finally gotten the point. Ask Richard Jewell. And yes, the media had a lot to do with the excesses of Mike Nifong himself.