Why hasn't Drew Peterson been Arrested yet?

[iluvmua]

He's as guilty as sin, if he killed Kathleen then why would he not kill Stacy?

[Mamie]

Originally posted by grammybear [*]It is just my opinion, but I suspect the ISP is going through every stitch of circumstantial evidence to make sure they have not overlooked anything and I also believe they may be waiting to find her body. I also believe that if she is not found soon they will arrest him and move forward with their case against him. There has been other cases where victims have not been found and the person responsible has been found guilty and end up in prison.

jmoo [/*]

I suspect you're right in your assumption of this, and couple with all of Kathleen's happenings before, up to and including her murder, it just might be enough to put things right. I do believe that when they go to court, they want to have all their ducks lined up and that takes time for all that compilation to be in order from Kathleen's written documentation to depositions and video footage (if needed) from people involved in DP's life and all the witnesses they can get their hands on. That's my opinion anyway. And then maybe after this, they might pose a self-question-------are there more he may be responsible for? JMO

because he's a PIG !

[Lyndawitha"Y]

Originally posted by johnielee333 [*]because he's a PIG ! [/*]

Now, why don't you tell how you really feel!...lOL

LMS

I agree - his arrest should have already happened. Why all of a sudden is he willing to put up $25K as a reward for her return?? I wish Sandra would update her site. April is over and she still hasn't been found.

[iluvmua]

Somebody out there KNOWS something, but I guess they are too afraid to talk.

Originally posted by Lyndawitha"Y [*]


Now, why don't you tell how you really feel!...lOL

LMS [/*]

hey whats up ?

[Lyndawitha"Y]

Originally posted by johnielee333 [*]

hey whats up ? [/*]

Waiting impatiently for Drew's Smirk to be wiped off his face..I hope they start with Kathleen's murder...then when ..note i said when Stacy IS found..they can get him for Stacy's as well!

I also think the Brodsky could be found to be hiding certain information..as I deem HIS SMIRK as "I know something ..you don't know!"

LMS

[Lyndawitha"Y]

Originally posted by iluvmua [*]Somebody out there KNOWS something, but I guess they are too afraid to talk. [/*]

It's possible they will come foreward when he gets charged with Kathleen's murder!..I can only hope anyway!

LMS

[Lyndawitha"Y]

Originally posted by GH247 [*]Because of the right to a speedy trial, prosecutors must have enough evidence to go to trial before bringing charges. When the evidence is thin, a defendant will sometimes demand a speedy trial to prevent the prosecution from making the case stronger between arraignment and trial. [/*]

Speaking of a speedy trial?..I have never heeard of Grand Jury's taking so long in their investigation?..Am I out in left field or what?

I realize they are loking into both Kathleen and Stacy's issues..but do they have to wait to complete both before coming to a decision?

LMS

Originally posted by iluvmua [*]He's as guilty as sin, if he killed Kathleen then why would he not kill Stacy? [/*]

Please share the evidence linking Drew to either murder. He may be a butt-head, but I've not heard anything yet that proves beyond a reasonable doubt that he murdered anybody.

Can you tell by "looking in his eyes" or some dumb old-wifes crap like that?

If he is truly guilty of one or both crimes, he should pay, otheriwse he will remain free

Originally posted by bbub [*]

Please share the evidence linking Drew to either murder. He may be a butt-head, but I've not heard anything yet that proves beyond a reasonable doubt that he murdered anybody.

Can you tell by "looking in his eyes" or some dumb old-wifes crap like that?

If he is truly guilty of one or both crimes, he should pay, otheriwse he will remain free [/*]

HUH????

[Lyndawitha"Y]

Originally posted by kizzzy [*]


HUH???? [/*]

I'm WITH "U" kizzzy..Just wonder where he/she's been for over 6 months???/?

[unclezeek]

When is the last time someone has been covicted of murder without proving there was a death?

[Lyndawitha"Y]

Originally posted by unclezeek [*]When is the last time someone has been covicted of murder without proving there was a death? [/*]

I think Hans Reiser was just convicted of murdering his wife..and no body ws ever found..Check out his thread here on this forum..Did I get that wrong?

LMS

Originally posted by Lyndawitha"Y [*]

I think Hans Reiser was just convicted of murdering his wife..and no body ws ever found..Check out his thread here on this forum..Did I get that wrong?

LMS [/*]

You're correct Lynda...

Guilty of first-degree murder

[unclezeek]

Originally posted by Lyndawitha"Y [*]

I think Hans Reiser was just convicted of murdering his wife..and no body ws ever found..Check out his thread here on this forum..Did I get that wrong?

LMS [/*]

I understand no body.... But how does one get convicted of murder if you cannot prove there was a death?

[Lyndawitha"Y]

Originally posted by unclezeek [*]I understand no body.... But how does one get convicted of murder if you cannot prove there was a death? [/*]

I think it's called circumstantial Evidence. The jury of his peers listened to all the evidence presented and convicted him of first degree murder of his wife.

Now, Hans Reiseris NOT the first to be convicted with such evidence..but now that I am on a laptop..not my home desktop..I am unable to locate and link to my post right now..However, maybe if you Google Murder Conviction without body..you may locate those cases.

You asked the question that I can not prove that Drew was at the scene of Kathleens murder...well, I say, according to Stacy's statement to her minister, she was witness to Drew washing clothes wee hours in morning , also stated Drew was not at home during the hours of her estimated time of death, ( she was originally his alibi) and he had all sorts of motive to get rid of her including money ..kids..alimony..etc.. So like they say in the movies..He had motive, opportunity and means to carry out this murder Course, I don't need to mention the fact he inserted himself into all this by finding her in the bathtub..and used friends to try and create a smoke screen and the LE fell for it back then..there may have been even a coverup..which with the current investigation could be exposed..So I guess we'll have to wait for the trial to get all the details, course wishful thinking on my part, huh?

LMS

[unclezeek]

Originally posted by Lyndawitha"Y [*]

I think it's called circumstantial Evidence. The jury of his peers listened to all the evidence presented and convicted him of first degree murder of his wife.

Now, Hans Reiseris NOT the first to be convicted with such evidence..but now that I am on a laptop..not my home desktop..I am unable to locate and link to my post right now..However, maybe if you Google Murder Conviction without body..you may locate those cases.

You asked the question that I can not prove that Drew was at the scene of Kathleens murder...well, I say, according to Stacy's statement to her minister, she was witness to Drew washing clothes wee hours in morning , also stated Drew was not at home during the hours of her estimated time of death, ( she was originally his alibi) and he had all sorts of motive to get rid of her including money ..kids..alimony..etc.. So like they say in the movies..He had motive, opportunity and means to carry out this murder Course, I don't need to mention the fact he inserted himself into all this by finding her in the bathtub..and used friends to try and create a smoke screen and the LE fell for it back then..there may have been even a coverup..which with the current investigation could be exposed..So I guess we'll have to wait for the trial to get all the details, course wishful thinking on my part, huh?

LMS [/*]

So you are telling me that you could be convicted of murder even though nobody is actually dead???

And that doesn't bother you?

[Lyndawitha"Y]

Originally posted by unclezeek [*]So you are telling me that you could be convicted of murder even though nobody is actually dead???

And that doesn't bother you? [/*]

First, I am not a juror, just a lowly poster listing reasons, opinions, speculate of possibles..and yes if I hear all the evidence that proves to me that there is no other reasonable conclusion..I could very well conclude that Drew was responsible....Course Kathleen IS DEAD..and they do have a body, and they do have a cause of death as blunt force trauma..so Finding him guilty is a possibilty.

As for Stacy, I too wish they can find her..but to this point I have no credible evidence that she left that house on her own accord..the only thing that some hold on to is because Drew said so...and yes, a prosecutor will have to have evidence to discount that claim..but given Stacy could have been a big witness against him in Kathleen's case..so goes T.Morphey, who is in protective custody ( what does that tell you..someone feels he's at rick too).

Anyway, believing Drew is guilty does not bother me at all, however, remember we here are discussing our points of view and rationale only..we are not signing on the dotted line on a verdict form to convict..People in general do come to conclusions without proof all the time..but in a court of law, jurors must listen to all evidence presented and make a group decision not based on our speculations and opinions.

I know you stated you believe Drew did these things, but stop at the edge of convicting him in your mind..cudos to you, but you are not a juror that must reserve judgement, but a poster who can waffle one way or the other depending on whatever information you see or here.

If some wishto believe Stacy indeed run off with some man and left her home, children and family secrety, when there is no proof she went anywhere and basing this solely on Drew's claims..That is there perrogative, and go one to call Stacy trash, a ****, floozy and so on based on what? There is far less ( if any) evidence of this actually being plausible much less true.

Hope you have a nice soft pillow to sit on for that fense of yours, as it could be a while before things get aired for all to see and hear.

LMS

[unclezeek]

Originally posted by Lyndawitha"Y [*]

First, I am not a juror, just a lowly poster listing reasons, opinions, speculate of possibles..and yes if I hear all the evidence that proves to me that there is no other reasonable conclusion..I could very well conclude that Drew was responsible....Course Kathleen IS DEAD..and they do have a body, and they do have a cause of death as blunt force trauma..so Finding him guilty is a possibilty.

As for Stacy, I too wish they can find her..but to this point I have no credible evidence that she left that house on her own accord..the only thing that some hold on to is because Drew said so...and yes, a prosecutor will have to have evidence to discount that claim..but given Stacy could have been a big witness against him in Kathleen's case..so goes T.Morphey, who is in protective custody ( what does that tell you..someone feels he's at rick too).

Anyway, believing Drew is guilty does not bother me at all, however, remember we here are discussing our points of view and rationale only..we are not signing on the dotted line on a verdict form to convict..People in general do come to conclusions without proof all the time..but in a court of law, jurors must listen to all evidence presented and make a group decision not based on our speculations and opinions.

I know you stated you believe Drew did these things, but stop at the edge of convicting him in your mind..cudos to you, but you are not a juror that must reserve judgement, but a poster who can waffle one way or the other depending on whatever information you see or here.

If some wishto believe Stacy indeed run off with some man and left her home, children and family secrety, when there is no proof she went anywhere and basing this solely on Drew's claims..That is there perrogative, and go one to call Stacy trash, a ****, floozy and so on based on what? There is far less ( if any) evidence of this actually being plausible much less true.

Hope you have a nice soft pillow to sit on for that fense of yours, as it could be a while before things get aired for all to see and hear.

LMS
[/*]

I truly believe Stacy is dead and I truly believe Drew killed her
But you did not answer my question....

Are you willing to do time for murder when nobody is actually dead?

You keep talking about a body and I am talking about a death.

[Lyndawitha"Y]

Originally posted by unclezeek [*]I truly believe Stacy is dead and I truly believe Drew killed her
But you did not answer my question....

Are you willing to do time for murder when nobody is actually dead?

You keep talking about a body and I am talking about a death. [/*]

I didn't realize you were asking if I would want to go to prison for murder if no death occurred..Now Unclezeek..that's an off the wall question..First I will never have to even consider such an option..I care, nurture life and in some cases prevented death..so how would I ever be faced with that desicion? I did some googling and found an interesting article of the legal term "Death in Absentia" I will attempt to link..but is found on wikipedia..

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?...ldid=209586988

hopefully this article will explain the many ways that a death can be declared by the legal system..having a body or not.

LMS

[unclezeek]

Originally posted by Lyndawitha"Y [*]

I didn't realize you were asking if I would want to go to prison for murder if no death occurred..Now Unclezeek..that's a off the wall question..First I will never have to even consider such an option..I care, nurture lefe and some cases prevented death..so how would I ever be faced with that desicion? I did not googling and found an interesting article of the legal term "Death in Absentia" I will attempt to link..but is found on wikipedia..

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?...ldid=209586988

hopefully this article will explain the many ways that a death can be declared by the legal system..having a body or not.

LMS

[/*]

Now you're starting to get it. Regardless of if they find Stacys body, they still have to prove she is dead before they can charge Drew with her murder.....Correct?

[Lyndawitha"Y]

Originally posted by unclezeek [*]Now you're starting to get it. Regardless of if they find Stacys body, they still have to prove she is dead before they can charge Drew with her murder.....Correct? [/*]

Me thinks you are running in circles and NOT seeing the forest of information out there..The definition of death in a medical terms means, Brain Death..however that body can be kept viable by mechanical means for reasons of transplant or deferral for family to get to bedside..But you just said if they find Stacy's body, how can they prove she died..or is dead ? Read you statement out loud and you should realize that is a rediculous question.

Now if Stacy is found alive, which in my opinion is not likely, then dah..no there was no death..but if her body is found then physiologically she is representative of a death.

Enough, unclezeek..you are now being truly off the wall..and incoherent to me anyway..Guess, I'll just have to resort to shaking my head instead of attempting to respond with my particular rationale..It will neverbe rational to you it seems..so no more wasting my time.

[Lyndawitha"Y]

Originally posted by unclezeek [*]Now you're starting to get it. Regardless of if they find Stacys body, they still have to prove she is dead before they can charge Drew with her murder.....Correct? [/*]

Read that article as it explains how to prove someone is dead!

[Lyndawitha"Y]

If there is not sufficient evidence that death has taken place, it may take somewhat longer, as simple absence does not necessarily prove death. The requirements for declaring an individual legally dead may vary depending on numerous details, including:

the jurisdiction in which the individual lived before death;
the jurisdiction in which he or she is presumed to have died;
how the individual is thought to have died (murder, suicide, accident, etc.);
the balance of probabilities making it more likely than not that the individual is dead.
Most countries have a set period of time (seven years in many common law jurisdictions) after which an individual is presumed to be dead if there is no evidence to the contrary. However, if the missing individual is the owner of a significant estate, the court may delay ordering a death certificate to be issued if there has been no real effort to locate the missing person. If the death is thought to have taken place in international waters or in a location without a centralized and reliable police force and/or vital statistics registration system, other laws may be in effect.

The above is a quote from the article about declaring "Death in Absentia"..So yes the prosecution can prove Stacy is dead..even without a body..it does take alot of circumstanital evidence..but can be done!
LMS

[unclezeek]

Originally posted by Lyndawitha"Y [*]If there is not sufficient evidence that death has taken place, it may take somewhat longer, as simple absence does not necessarily prove death. The requirements for declaring an individual legally dead may vary depending on numerous details, including:

the jurisdiction in which the individual lived before death;
the jurisdiction in which he or she is presumed to have died;
how the individual is thought to have died (murder, suicide, accident, etc.);
the balance of probabilities making it more likely than not that the individual is dead.
Most countries have a set period of time (seven years in many common law jurisdictions) after which an individual is presumed to be dead if there is no evidence to the contrary. However, if the missing individual is the owner of a significant estate, the court may delay ordering a death certificate to be issued if there has been no real effort to locate the missing person. If the death is thought to have taken place in international waters or in a location without a centralized and reliable police force and/or vital statistics registration system, other laws may be in effect.

The above is a quote from the article about declaring "Death in Absentia"..So yes the prosecution can prove Stacy is dead..even without a body..it does take alot of circumstanital evidence..but can be done!
LMS

[/*]

I' am not saying you cannot prove death without a body. I am saying you cannot prove murder without a death.

Originally posted by bbub [*]

Please share the evidence linking Drew to either murder. He may be a butt-head, but I've not heard anything yet that proves beyond a reasonable doubt that he murdered anybody.

Can you tell by "looking in his eyes" or some dumb old-wifes crap like that?

If he is truly guilty of one or both crimes, he should pay, otheriwse he will remain free [/*]

i was there,i saw him do it !
dont forget,i am the fly on the wall ! LOL

[Lyndawitha"Y]

Originally posted by johnielee333 [*]

i was there,i saw him do it !
dont forget,i am the fly on the wall ! LOL [/*]

Thankyou for making me LOL..Enjoyed the big ol' Chuckle!
LMS

Originally posted by Lyndawitha"Y [*]

I think it's called circumstantial Evidence. The jury of his peers listened to all the evidence presented and convicted him of first degree murder of his wife.

Now, Hans Reiseris NOT the first to be convicted with such evidence..but now that I am on a laptop..not my home desktop..I am unable to locate and link to my post right now..However, maybe if you Google Murder Conviction without body..you may locate those cases.

You asked the question that I can not prove that Drew was at the scene of Kathleens murder...well, I say, according to Stacy's statement to her minister, she was witness to Drew washing clothes wee hours in morning , also stated Drew was not at home during the hours of her estimated time of death, ( she was originally his alibi) and he had all sorts of motive to get rid of her including money ..kids..alimony..etc.. So like they say in the movies..He had motive, opportunity and means to carry out this murder Course, I don't need to mention the fact he inserted himself into all this by finding her in the bathtub..and used friends to try and create a smoke screen and the LE fell for it back then..there may have been even a coverup..which with the current investigation could be exposed..So I guess we'll have to wait for the trial to get all the details, course wishful thinking on my part, huh?

LMS [/*]

no wishful thinking on your part,only truth. they will all see.
drew is a double murderer. YES HE IS !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Originally posted by unclezeek [*]So you are telling me that you could be convicted of murder even though nobody is actually dead???

And that doesn't bother you? [/*]

who is nobody ? stacy was a human being NOT a nobody.
she was murdered by her husband Drew, who is an
a$$ho!e,liar,cheat,control freak,nut case,weirdo,abuser,sick mother f-eee r who needs to go straight down to he!! where he belongs with the rest of them & with the devil !!
may the good lord above see's to it !!!!!!!!!!!! i pray to you lord, please take stacy home to her family & put Drew Peterson where he belongs !!!!!!!! please jesus, please !!!!!!!!!!!!

AMEN

Originally posted by Lyndawitha"Y [*]

Thankyou for making me LOL..Enjoyed the big ol' Chuckle!
LMS [/*]

I TRY !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Originally posted by Lyndawitha"Y [*]

First, I am not a juror, just a lowly poster listing reasons, opinions, speculate of possibles..and yes if I hear all the evidence that proves to me that there is no other reasonable conclusion..I could very well conclude that Drew was responsible....Course Kathleen IS DEAD..and they do have a body, and they do have a cause of death as blunt force trauma..so Finding him guilty is a possibilty.

As for Stacy, I too wish they can find her..but to this point I have no credible evidence that she left that house on her own accord..the only thing that some hold on to is because Drew said so...and yes, a prosecutor will have to have evidence to discount that claim..but given Stacy could have been a big witness against him in Kathleen's case..so goes T.Morphey, who is in protective custody ( what does that tell you..someone feels he's at rick too).

Anyway, believing Drew is guilty does not bother me at all, however, remember we here are discussing our points of view and rationale only..we are not signing on the dotted line on a verdict form to convict..People in general do come to conclusions without proof all the time..but in a court of law, jurors must listen to all evidence presented and make a group decision not based on our speculations and opinions.

I know you stated you believe Drew did these things, but stop at the edge of convicting him in your mind..cudos to you, but you are not a juror that must reserve judgement, but a poster who can waffle one way or the other depending on whatever information you see or here.

If some wishto believe Stacy indeed run off with some man and left her home, children and family secrety, when there is no proof she went anywhere and basing this solely on Drew's claims..That is there perrogative, and go one to call Stacy trash, a ****, floozy and so on based on what? There is far less ( if any) evidence of this actually being plausible much less true.

Hope you have a nice soft pillow to sit on for that fense of yours, as it could be a while before things get aired for all to see and hear.

LMS
[/*]

Originally posted by unclezeek [*]I truly believe Stacy is dead and I truly believe Drew killed her
But you did not answer my question....

Are you willing to do time for murder when nobody is actually dead?

You keep talking about a body and I am talking about a death. [/*]

LOOK, WAKE UP, THEY'VE CONVICTED PEOPLE FOR YRS NOW WITHOUT A BODY & MOST OF THESE BODYS HAVE NEVER BEEN FOUND. IT IS MORE REASONABLE TO BELIEVE THAT IF A PERSON IS NEVER FOUND THEN THEY MUST BE DEAD. IF THEY HAVE ENOUGH EVIDENCE TO PROVE THAT YOU KILLED THEM WITHOUT HAVING THEIR BODY THEN MORE THAN LIKELY THE JURY WILL FIND YOU GUILTY OF MURDER & BELIEVE ME , THEY REALLY ARE GUILTY OF MURDERING THE PERSON.

Originally posted by Lyndawitha"Y [*]

Me thinks you are running in circles and NOT seeing the forest of information out there..The definition of death in a medical terms means, Brain Death..however that body can be kept viable by mechanical means for reasons of transplant or deferral for family to get to bedside..But you just said if they find Stacy's body, how can they prove she died..or is dead ? Read you statement out loud and you should realize that is a rediculous question.

Now if Stacy is found alive, which in my opinion is not likely, then dah..no there was no death..but if her body is found then physiologically she is representative of a death.

Enough, unclezeek..you are now being truly off the wall..and incoherent to me anyway..Guess, I'll just have to resort to shaking my head instead of attempting to respond with my particular rationale..It will neverbe rational to you it seems..so no more wasting my time.

[/*]

You are right Lyndawitha"y. some people(unclezeek) & others do not get it. they twist it anyway than can to try their hardest justify the way they think. sometimes, i wonder about people. i just dont get it(them).

Originally posted by Lyndawitha"Y [*]If there is not sufficient evidence that death has taken place, it may take somewhat longer, as simple absence does not necessarily prove death. The requirements for declaring an individual legally dead may vary depending on numerous details, including:

the jurisdiction in which the individual lived before death;
the jurisdiction in which he or she is presumed to have died;
how the individual is thought to have died (murder, suicide, accident, etc.);
the balance of probabilities making it more likely than not that the individual is dead.
Most countries have a set period of time (seven years in many common law jurisdictions) after which an individual is presumed to be dead if there is no evidence to the contrary. However, if the missing individual is the owner of a significant estate, the court may delay ordering a death certificate to be issued if there has been no real effort to locate the missing person. If the death is thought to have taken place in international waters or in a location without a centralized and reliable police force and/or vital statistics registration system, other laws may be in effect.

The above is a quote from the article about declaring "Death in Absentia"..So yes the prosecution can prove Stacy is dead..even without a body..it does take alot of circumstanital evidence..but can be done!
LMS

[/*]

AND IT WILL BE DONE !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[RayStar]

Thank you Lynda for your informative post. The query you endured is probably from the state of IL.
I hope before long DP will be behind bars. That smirk just makes one want to puke. Lisa S. is still missing also. I know there is a thread here for her. Just thought I would mention her also because using common sense would certainly make both of these cases soundly unreasonable. Neither just walked away.
I want LE to have a concrete case to leave no doubt that DP is guilty in both cases. Hopefully, a jury will convict DP real soon.

[Lyndawitha"Y]

GOODMORNING!!! Yowza..where were you guys yesterday..I was really stepping into my lecture mode attempting to be fair, informative and stick to my own personal rationale ..I got one PM that was very supportive..it means alot to think at least someone other than an argumentative, type that refuses to read and understand ..It's like trying to explain there's snow on the ground so one could assume it snowed..but there are those that question that fact..just cause they can...

Anyway,I too have been folowing some of the LS story too, as I think it has been linked to Stacy's disapearance right from the beginning. According to Sandra *..she too is working on Lisa's case as well. Somewhere in the back of my mind I think Our favorite Cop we loveto hate, is either involved with that one to or at least hasknowledge..I do believe that sick, underhanded,felonious types gravitate to each other.

I have now refer to both Drew and his sidekick Brodsky as the "SMIRKYSHMUCKS"..and can't wait to see it wiped off their faces!

Have a great day..and again appreciaate the backup!

LMS

hi all....

i don't know if this will make a difference to unclezeek, but i guess i'll post my thought anyway ....

there's a difference between "proving" a death has occurred and "declaring" a death has occurred ...

i think once someone has been "declared" dead, under suspicious circumstances, then a suspect can be tried for a murder.

(imo..)

for stacy

Originally posted by pcaves [*]hi all....

i don't know if this will make a difference to unclezeek, but i guess i'll post my thought anyway ....

there's a difference between "proving" a death has occurred and "declaring" a death has occurred ...

i think once someone has been "declared" dead, under suspicious circumstances, then a suspect can be tried for a murder.

(imo..)

for stacy [/*]

for stacy