Some criminal acts won’t wither away

Crime is all about us, and sometimes we get a quick resolution.
 

Tinley Park P.D. still searching

Either the so-called stick-up man falls asleep in the getaway car, or does something else absurd (think of those people now sitting in Cook County Jail on criminal charges they beat a mentally-retarded man, and videotaped it to post on Facebook) to give themselves away.

BUT MANY TIMES, we don’t get the quick resolution. Sometimes, we never get an official end to a case – even though the masses of us have to figure out a way to get on with our lives; or else we’d be a neurotic mess if a lifetime’s worth of horrors accumulated.

What brought this to mind was a pair of stories that turned up this week about criminal acts from a decade or so ago that technically remain unsolved to this day.

Although in one case, the man many suspect of committing the crime is now “doing the time” (remember “Baretta?”) has been in prison for several years and likely will rot away what remains of his life at the Menard Correctional Center in Southern Illinois.

We’re talking about Drew Peterson, the one-time Bolingbrook cop who a decade ago was all over the news because of the disappearance of wife number four, whom he married not long after wife number three died drowned.

THAT DEATH INITIALLY was thought to be accidental, but was later ruled a homicide, and Peterson is now serving a 38-year prison term for it, along with more prison time he picked up for supposedly trying to hire someone to kill the state’s attorney who prosecuted him.

But the disappearance of wife number four, Stacy, remains an unsolved incident, even though Peterson’s son, Stephen (himself a former police officer in Oak Brook) said recently during the “Monster in My Family” program on the Lifetime cable TV network he now thinks his dad killed his step-mother Stacy.

Not that he knows anything specific that would result in a resolution of the case – the public’s suspicions that “Drew did it” may well linger on for decades to come.

 

Peterson still rotting in prison

Although I’m sure the Lifetime network will be the big beneficiary. They are, after all, the same one that gave us that 2012 film “Untouchable” that purported to be the Peterson story starring actor Rob Lowe in the lead role, Maybe they’ll find new reasons to keep putting the Peterson saga on television?

THERE ALSO REMAINS the incident that in some minds will forevermore cling to the name of the Lane Bryant chain of clothing stores – the slaying of five women at a store in suburban Tinley Park that occurred nine years ago Thursday.

Officials in Will County (the crime occurred just right across the county line from Cook) say they’ve chased down some 7,000 leads, and Tinley Park police have one detective who remains on the investigation.

Not that there has ever been anything close to an arrest. Or the finding of anyone who bears a resemblance to those police sketches of the man who supposedly forced six women into a backroom of the store, then shot them with a pistol.

Five died. One survived.

THIS INCIDENT STICKS in my mind because my mother at the time lived in Tinley Park just a few short minutes drive from the store, and I remember trying to visit her that day only to encounter local police who were searching everyone in the area.

I had to justify to a cop that my mother actually lived nearby. Then again, I later learned the shootings had occurred within the past half hour.

The frustrating part is that I really don’t know any more about this criminal incident now than I did that day. The rumor mills out in the suburbs have spewed their share of stories and theories about what happened that day.

But for those with a direct interest in the case, they don’t even get the Drew Peterson outcome – that sense of someone being locked up for a differing crime!

  -30-

Ivanka does Chicago! Donald does Bolingbrook? Trumps in Chicagoland

We won’t be seeing Donald Trump anywhere within the Chicago city limits anytime soon, if ever, during this campaign cycle.
 

Trump sends 'better half' to Chicago for campaign cash

There’d be far too many people inclined to mock him mercilessly for his initial debate performance – particularly from those people who are convinced the lousy microphone system was, in reality, a case of a candidate with “the sniffles.”

AFTER ALL, ISN’T Hillary the one who toughed it out on the campaign trail while suffering from pneumonia, continuing to make appearances at a time when ordinary people would have been staying home in bed and whining for their spouse to bring them another bowl of chicken soup?

Trump likely will have to do more debate prep for his next appearance Oct. 9 at Washington University in St. Louis, and probably will put the squeeze on his vice presidential running mate, Mike Pence, who has his lone debate event Tuesday at Longwood University.

But we in Chicago may get a taste of Trump this week – for it seems that daughter Ivanka is scheduled to make several stops in Illinois on Wednesday.

Those include an evening cocktail party/fundraiser in the city, along with a breakfast-type/coffee event in Quincy and lunch in Peoria.

MUCH IS BEING made of Trump’s recent comments implying he thinks Chicago’s homicide rate makes it a far-more-dangerous place to visit than reality reflects.

Is Donald scared? Actually, he’s probably more realizing that any assault he’d face in Chicago would be in the form of verbal harassment and insults. As we saw quite clearly during his first debate performance Monday night, he doesn’t like being questioned or criticized.

He likes to be the one who dishes it out.

Besides, I do find it somewhat odd that Trump may be in the metropolitan area (as in outside the city proper) on Wednesday. Supposedly, he’s going to show up in Bolingbrook for a political luncheon that twice already has been cancelled.

SOMETHING KEEPS COMING up that knocks the event off the schedule. Will Trump finally honor this commitment?

Considering that Bolingbrook, is some minds, is nothing more than the municipality that once employed Drew Peterson as a law enforcement officer, you’d have to question the idea that the community is all that safe.

After all, not many communities can claim to have one of their officers now serving a lengthy prison term (he’d have to live to at least 93 to ever be free again) for murder. Although it seems that Peterson is only a threat to the young girls who fall for him, thereby leaving Trump safe.

Anyway, back to Ivanka, who could be an interesting persona. There is evidence that she may be the one of all the Trump kids (the jury is still out on Trump’s youngest son, Baron) who amounts to anything – what with her corporate role with the Trump Organization and the fact she plays a significant part in the business.

HOW MANY WILL come out to see Trump’s eldest daughter? Will they bring their checkbooks and make donations to try to give Trump a campaign fund that comes close to approaching the many millions that Democrat Hillary Clinton will have access to?

And what kind of crowd will Trump himself garner. Politico reported estimates from Republican party leaders that some 400 supporters will be on hand for the suburban event. Although there’s always the chance that some activist types will want to show up to cause a ruckus.

We’ll have to see if Trump has a sufficient explanation for his less-than-stellar debate performance Monday night.

Or will it amount to little more than a gruff demand that the questioner “Stuff it!!!!” up a certain bodily sphincter? Ouch!

  -30-

How speedy can justice be? Not quick enough in Drew Peterson case!

By and large, the ongoing legal saga of former suburban Bolingbrook police officer Drew Peterson is something I have tried to ignore.

It has the titillating factor that can be amusing for a story or two. But as it drones on and on throughout the years, it gets monotonous. How many times can we write stories meant to imply that Peterson is a less-than-model example of a human being?

IF YOU WANT me to be honest, a part of me would like to think that Peterson is telling the truth with regards to Wife Number Four – Stacy. Who has been missing for so many years and has always been presumed by law enforcement officials to be a murder victim whose body has yet to turn up.

Peterson has always claimed his wife ran off, possibly with a bunch of his money, and that she’s having a good laugh at his expense in some isolated part of the world.

I’d like it if that were true because it would be something that would serve Peterson right for what appears to be his overly-boorish behavior. Besides, do we really prefer the idea of someone being dead (if not forgotten) all these years?

Peterson, of course, is the guy who ultimately got convicted of criminal charges for the death of Wife Number Three; whose demise initially was thought to be accidental.

BUT ALL THE scrutiny tied to the investigation of the disappearance of Stacey Peterson caused the death of Kathleen Savio to be reinvestigated – and a coroner to change his mind about “accidental.”

Which is why Peterson is now in the maximum-security prison located in the Southern Illinois community of Chester for such a lengthy term that he’s not likely to get out of prison alive.

Which also is why the additional charges being filed against him are more about being punitive than anything else. Prosecutors in Southern Illinois, with help from the Illinois attorney general’s office, say that Peterson tried to arrange to have Will County State’s Attorney James Glasgow killed as retribution for his first trial.

Officials say they have tape recordings of conversations Peterson had with other people – whose identity they are going out of their way to hide.

AND THAT IS why Peterson was in court again on Tuesday – for a case management conference before a judge in Randolph County, Ill., according to the Associated Press. Which means attorneys for all sides will try to hash out the specifics and see how ready they are to actually go to trial.

That may be the only positive thing about this new case – Peterson has said he wants to go by the letter of the law with regards to rules concerning his right to a speedy trial.

Perhaps he thinks he can catch prosecutors in some sort of legal glitch and they will have to dismiss the case altogether.

Although news reports from Randolph County show prosecutors who are confident enough to say they will be ready to go to trial by mid-July, and the judge on Tuesday scheduled July 6 as the date that jury selection can begin.

CONSIDERING HOW MANY criminal cases can easily stretch into years (it took nearly three for Peterson’s first criminal trial to begin), that would truly be miraculous.

It would also be a positive for society at-large. Because the sooner this case is resolved (and prosecutors possibly get a judge to add up to 60 years in prison to Peterson’s existing 38-year sentence), the less trivia our airwaves will be polluted with.

And the quicker it will be that we can quit making tacky jokes about how the part of “Drew Peterson” would be played in a sequel to “Untouchable” (a Lifetime movie) by the Rob Lowe who still gets cable TV.

  -30-

EXTRA: An off-the-wall question, but a predictable outcome, for Peterson case

PETERSON: Verdict pleased, but was it proper?

We should have known something was up when, in mid-day Wednesday, jurors in a Will County courtroom asked Judge Edward Burmila to clarify exactly what “unanimous” means.

As in all 12 jurors have to agree on the same verdict in order for it to mean anything.

WAS THERE SOME sort of hard-headed juror who was being stubborn, and his colleagues wanted to know what they could do to overcome him (or her)? Was there really some confusion about whether majority was enough to reach a verdict?

Or was this truly a vacuous jury?

All I know is that when I learned of the question, it seemed that Barack Obama’s worst nightmare was about to come true. The big story today and into the Friday ayem newspaper cycle would be that of the verdict against one-time Bolingbrook cop Drew Peterson.

Who was going to give a squat what Obama would say on Thursday night in accepting the nomination of his political party to run for a second term as president?

AN ATTITUDE I find despicable and irritating. But one that I realistically have to acknowledge is felt by many. Cheap thrills and petty crime does have a knack of snatching attention away from serious matters.

And if it means an arrogant buffoon such as Drew Peterson officially crossed the line into becoming a corrupt cop (one who would kill his wife in order to allow himself to marry another, much younger, woman), I’m sure many people will rejoice in the “Guilty” verdict that was handed down Thursday afternoon.

Even though a part of me can’t help but think of that old Doonesbury strip from nearly four decades ago where the Mark Slackmeyer character used his radio show to do a Watergate-era program on then-Attorney General John Mitchell, whom he pronounced with a wild-eyed look to be, “Guilty! Guilty, guilty, guilty!”

Somehow, I sense the mood in Joliet on Thursday was just as crazed.

THE  REPORTS COMING from that city tell of the honking of horns and sirens, the singing of songs parodying Peterson’s plight, and even a mob that persisted in taunting defense attorneys while trying to leave the downtown Joliet courthouse – located within walking distance of the casinos.

It’s a wonder somebody didn’t get hurt.

It also doesn’t surprise me to learn that the jurors themselves sought to sneak out of the building as undetected as possible.

They would have been subjected to questioning about whether they found any substance to the hearsay testimony and lack of physical evidence that would have shown Peterson was present when Wife Number Three died.

IT IS THAT very weak evidence that had some people believing Peterson could actually be acquitted of the criminal charges – no matter how much the public mood against him is hostile.

It’s also not like the jury gave any evidence of what it thought. Usually, a juror or two is willing to discuss how a verdict was reached.

But in this case, the jury prepared a written statement that is a masterpiece of saying absolutely nothing. Unless you can interpret some significance to the one-liner of, “After much deliberation, we have reached a decision we believe is just.”

If it reads like I’m skeptical of the legitimacy of this verdict, I sort of am. But I can’t say it surprises me. I always expected the mood against Peterson to be so intense that it would sway the jury into a “guilty” verdict.

I FULLY SUSPECT that the same people who got all worked up on Thursday would have been outraged if a mistrial had been granted on any of the multiple instances during testimony that prosecutors overstepped their bounds.

But I also believe that this is a case where the appellate court decision is going to turn out to be more significant than the court verdict.

Which means the Peterson circus now gets to pack up its tent and leave Joliet for a 37-mile trip west on Interstate 80 to Ottawa – the location of the appellate court, which hasn’t seen such nonsense since the day more than a century-and-a-half ago when it hosted one of the Lincoln/Douglas debates.

  -30-

Distractions, distractions!

Maybe it’s a sign from “God” that the presidential nominating conventions being held these days are ignorable.

More interesting than Mitt?

But it strikes me as ironic that the news cycles are offering us alternate stories that take away from the attention that the political parties would like us to be paying to their conventions that are meant to get the public all stirred up with excitement about the prospects of voting for either President Barack Obama or Republican challenger Mitt Romney.

FOR ROMNEY, HE had to compete with the coverage given to Hurricane Isaac – which might not have been as intense as the Hurricane Katrina that whacked New Orleans seven years ago.

But it did enough damage in New Orleans and Mississippi that the focus of the nation rightfully so wasn’t on the activity in Tampa, Fla.

Even if Clint Eastwood did his oddball rambling on behalf of the Romney campaign, real people were more interested in the way that people in the south were coping with the rains – which actually managed to work its way up to the Midwestern U.S. this past weekend to give us possibly the heaviest rainfall we’ve seen all summer.

It got so bad that Romney had to arrange his post-convention schedule to include an appearance in New Orleans on Friday, making it appear as though he was concerned about the damage and rehearsing for the day when he is president and has to prepare to issue a federal disaster declaration.

NOT THAT DEMOCRATIC Party partisans should be gloating at the loss of attention the Republicans suffered. Because they’re going to get hit with their own “hurricane” in the form of Drew Peterson.

Peterson, of course, is the suburban Chicago cop whose trial for murder of his third wife (wife four is still missing, as well) likely will wrap up this week.

PETERSON: Beats out Barack?



Peterson’s attorneys put on their defense last week, following just over two weeks of evidence (including all the hearsay testimony about what the dead and/or missing women would have said if they could be here with us) from the prosecution.

There won’t be any activity at the Will County courthouse on Monday. But Tuesday will be the day for closing arguments (State’s Attorney James Glasgow plans to make the final statement himself).

THEN, IT’S UP to the jury – the one that seems to like to dress alike. Perhaps that is a sign of unity.

I’d like to think that this case is straight-forward enough that deliberations could be over by Wednesday. Which would put it at the heart of the Democratic National Convention’s activity.

But why do I suspect that this jury will take a couple of full days? If that happens, we could very well have a verdict on Thursday – the day that Obama himself is supposed to speak at the convention, accept nomination for a second term as president, and deliver an “inspirational” speech that will make we, the American people, eager to vote for him again.

Unless, of course, the jury returns the verdict the same day.

IN WHICH CASE, dateline “JOLIET, Ill.” will supplant that of “CHARLOTTE, N.C.” as the top story of the news.

Barack Obama will get bumped off the front pages of newspapers, and the top spot of the websites affiliated with those publications, by a tawdry tale of a middle-aged cop with a thing for young girls.

Be honest! A Peterson verdict, whether “guilty” or “not guilty,” is going to draw more interest among many people than an Obama speech – no matter how eloquent it turns out to be.

Would Obama literally have to deviate his schedule to make an appearance in Joliet at the courthouse to offer his thoughts in order to force his face back into the public eye?

THAT MIGHT SAY more about we, the public, and our interests (or lack thereof).

Perhaps if it were a real “Act of God,” the almighty would give us enough of an intelligence jolt so we’d have a broader attention span.

  -30-

Fair? Or Justice?

What should we think of the progressing trial for one-time suburban Bolingbrook cop Drew Petersen, who many people suspect (but can’t come up with definitive evidence to prove) killed off two of his wives?

PETERSON: When will he go away?



The ongoing story line has had several incidents where prosecutors in Will County said things meant to influence jurors in ways that would exceed the evidence that Judge Edward Burmila (himself the former state’s attorney for Will County) has previously determined will be allowed in the trial.

THERE HAS BEEN repeated talk of “mistrial,” although that hasn’t happened yet. Although it has some people convinced that the prosecutors have lost credibility and are on the verge of blowing this trial.

Peterson could wind up going free on charges that the death of his third wife was a murder, and not an accident as officials originally thought.

That may well happen. But not for the reason that many people are suggesting these days.

Because I honestly believe that this trial is headed for a “guilty” verdict. If there is to be an ultimate acquittal, of sorts, it’s going to come from an Illinois appellate court panel based in Ottawa.

AND I’M SURE that act will greatly offend the public. Much more than any actions being taken by prosecutors these days that are overstepping the bounds of “The Law!”

In fact, it wouldn’t shock me to learn that many people in our society are pleased to see the prosecutors playing hard and pushing their courtroom behavior to the limit!

Because while there may have been at least three incidents during the nearly two full weeks that began this trial that some consider improper, we also have to concede that none of these acts have resulted in a mistrial.

Or, worse yet, a mistrial “with prejudice” that would mean the error was so severe that all the criminal charges get dismissed – and Peterson really does become a ‘law-abiding’ citizen again. Some people may interpret that lack of a mistrial as evidence that the behavior is within appropriate limits.

I COULDN’T HELP but notice the reports that came out last week about how Burmila felt compelled to warn the people who sit in his cramped courtroom not to engage in any outbursts in response to the activity during the trial.

What was it that offended the spectators? It seems that some people were making known they disapproved of attempts by the defense attorneys to ask questions on behalf of Peterson!

How dare they attempt to defend their client – who probably is being bled dry financially in order to pay for the legal advice they’re giving him.

Then, there’s Jeff Ruby, who owns seven high-end restaurants in the Midwestern U.S. (and in Louisville, Ky., to be technical). He’s one of these guys who equates “law and order” with hard-line tactics and is willing to see certain limits be pushed.

HE ALSO DOESN’T seem to approve of defense attorneys. He says he is bothered by the attorneys working for Petersen, who may well get their client an acquittal on these charges. It seems to me that he seems to think that “justice” doesn’t necessarily have to be about “fairness.”

Ruby has made appearances on the Fox News Channel, and also has taken out full-page advertisements in the Joliet Herald-News newspaper to have statements published letting his disgust be known.

Now I’ll be the first to admit that the conduct of the defense attorneys has been over-the-top. I particularly find it appalling that one attorney is writing pieces being published by the Chicago Sun-Times on their website – although what really bothers me is that the Sun-Times has people who think that such legal babbling is interesting.

But somehow, I sense that when Ruby told the Herald-News newspaper last week that Will County State’s Attorney James Glasgow, “walks and he talks like a pro. He looks like a professional,” he may be speaking for a significant segment of  “the masses.”

THERE MAY WELL be a large number of people who are so eager for a “guilty” verdict in this case that they’ll overlook what they probably prefer to dismiss as “legal technicalities.”

Maybe we have people who aren’t so concerned about the high level of “hearsay” testimony that is being used in this particular case. And I might be in the minority of people whose disgust with this case isn’t so much with Peterson as it is with the level of tackiness that this trial has devolved with.

It is to the point where I don’t care about the outcome. I just want it to end. Nobody has the moral high ground these days at the courthouse in Joliet.

  -30-

EDITOR’S NOTE: The Chicago Tribune contemplated the concept of whether jurors can really disregard comments made by prosecutors that Judge Burmila tells them to disregard.

Do we have our priorities confused?

It is on days like Monday that I wonder the point of reporting the news, since the priorities for what is significant can become so convoluted.

PETERSON: Too much attention!!!



For there are many of us in the newsgathering business who are wetting our pants in anticipation of the fact that Drew Peterson (the suburban Bolingbrook cop whom many suspect keeps killing his young wives) is going on trial.

IT BEGINS TUESDAY in Will County Circuit Court in Joliet, and the downtown area is going to become a madhouse for the next few weeks – primarily because the small city really isn’t designed for the scale of the lunacy that is going to crop up in coming weeks.

Personally, I’m glad this case is finally going to trial. It has bothered me that it took sooooooo long (nearly three full years) before we got to this point. But I also feel fortunate NOT to be covering this particular story.

Because it will be way too easy to get caught up in the hype and the ill-will,, as there are many people who only view this case as a legal travesty because Peterson wasn’t found guilty a long time ago of the death of wife number three.

These are the people who aren’t the least bit bothered by the fact that this case will rely on so much circumstantial evidence that there are many legal scholars predicting that it might not hold up.

WE SHOULD ALL brace ourselves for the fact that a “not guilty” verdict is very possible, along with the eventual sight of a smug Drew Peterson sauntering out of the courthouse proclaiming victory, innocence, and perhaps even revenge against those who “did him wrong!”

Although even if prosecutors are able to take all the hearsay and third-party evidence and use it to convict Peterson (thereby officially turning him into a corrupt cop who went to prison), then we’d have to put up with the insufferable cheering of people whose mentality is only one level (maybe a level-and-a-half) removed from a lynch mob.

It won’t be a pretty tale that will emanate from Joliet in coming weeks. It will bother me even more than the whole disappearance of Stacey Peterson always has.

QUINN: Bad timing?



There is a part of me that really wishes she were alive and merely hiding from a husband who (from all glimpses) was an overbearing jerk.

BECAUSE THAT WOULD mean Stacey came to her senses and dumped Drew – which I’m sure is such a blow to his ego that he won’t ever fully recover from. Even if he winds up leaving the Chicago area for some rural Florida community near a beach where he eventually takes up with Wife Five (and maybe even Six), getting younger and younger as the years progress for him.

That tawdry end is probably what the Drew Petersons of the world really deserve. Not the attention of the world that he’s going to get in coming weeks.

Although there is a story that I wish could get such attention. But it won’t.

It is the tale concerning Illinois state government and the flawed way in which it funds the programs that cover pensions for retired employees and public school educators outside of Chicago.

IT IS A mess. It is a significant part of the reason why the state’s finances are a mess. Yet officials didn’t bother to do much of anything during their spring legislative session, and they knew they could get away with it because the average public didn’t care.

So when I learned that Gov. Pat Quinn on Monday issued the order saying that the General Assembly must return to Springfield on Aug. 17 at 1 p.m. to consider (and approve) a solution to the mess, I became skeptical.

Because unless there is a solution negotiated by Quinn and the legislative leaders, all that the legislators will do is sit around for a few minutes, then go home. They’ll claim there’s nothing for them to do.

And I’m not the least bit convinced that the legislative leaders are anywhere near close to having a solution in place that the rank-and-file of the General Assembly could even consider voting on.

IF ANY OF you think that the mere presence of the legislators at the Statehouse will force something to be done, you probably also believe that there’s a decent human being lurking somewhere in the body of Drew Peterson.

It won’t happen. If anything, Quinn may have made a mistake by picking that date.

SMITH: More interesting than pensions?



Because Aug. 17 is already the date that the Illinois House is supposed to come back to Springfield to consider the fate of state Rep. Derrick Smith, D-Chicago, who faces federal charges alleging he took bribes in exchange for his government services.

That issue, and all of its rants and rages and cheap rhetoric, will dominate the Legislature’s attention span.

I’D BE WILLING to bet anything that what little public attention is paid to state government that day will go toward whether or not Smith got kicked out of the Legislature. Nobody’s going to care whether or not the pension problem got fixed that day.

And in all likelihood, if the activity in the Drew Peterson trial is particularly feisty that day (it may still be going on by mid-August), even Derrick Smith will be an afterthought.

  -30-

No freedom for Drew! Will Rod soon join him? And what about Troy?

We’d like to think we live in a society where logic and reason always prevails, and where we have control of our raw emotion so that we don’t let our distaste for someone guide us into potentially erroneous actions.

BLAGOJEVICH: No friends

Ah! Who are we kidding? We live in a society where that gut reaction often guides our thoughts, particularly when it comes to people we can’t stand.

THAT DEFINITELY APPLIES to every single person who heard the speculation recently that former Gov. Rod Blagojevich could face a prison term between 30 years and life, and somehow had a smirk break out on their face.

Personally, I’m inclined to think 30 months in a federal corrections facility is too long a sentence for Blagojevich. But I know the politically partisan distaste that  many felt for the man when he had the unmitigated gall (in their opinions) to run for governor in the first place is now being manifested in wanting him put away extra long.

Yet it’s not a fluke emotion being expressed here. It comes up all too often.

It definitely is behind the criminal proceedings taking place these days in Will County Circuit Court, where prosecutors are trying to put one-time Bolingbrook cop Drew Peterson in prison on charges that he killed wife number three.

OF COURSE, MANY people want to believe that Peterson also killed wife number four – whose disappearance several years ago is what first drew the public spotlight on Drew.

The man is cocky, arrogant and smug – although I wonder how much of that is an act meant to help him bear with the fact that he has spent the past couple of years in a county jail awaiting trial.

PETERSON: Too many enemies?



There have been concerns about the evidence that could be used against Peterson, particularly since some of it involves statements supposedly made by wife number four about the death of wife number three (which originally was classified as accidental – and only became homicide after Peterson became too high-profile a case because of the last wife’s disappearance).

It is because of those concerns that the pre-trial process has taken so long (he was supposed to have gone on trial last year).

IT ALSO IS why Peterson’s attorneys tried the long-shot legal motion of trying to get him released from jail while the process continues. Being incarcerated for so long without a criminal conviction must surely be wrong!

Not quite.

The Illinois Supreme Court this week rejected Peterson’s request for freedom – unless he can come up with the 10 percent of the $20 million bond that was set for him (which was set so high to ensure there would be no way he could possibly come up with the money to be set free).

But just envision what would have happened had the Illinois high court ruled in a way that set Drew free? Somehow, I could envision the political outcry being more intense than the days of the late-1990s when Justice James Heiple was all the rage.

HE JUST TRIED to use his court credentials to get out of a traffic ticket – and wound up having to appear before an Illinois House panel that considered (but never got around to) impeachment.

Just think of what our Legislature would do to the entire Supreme Court of Illinois if they ruled in favor of Peterson. Impeachment for all?!?

Or else we’d have some people in our society demanding recall elections for the entire General Assembly!

This is one of those criminal cases where logic and the rule of law are easy to ignore because too many people want the worst to happen. Which may well mean that Peterson could be the one person who could identify with Blagojevich’s current predicament when he faces sentencing (possibly) next month.

BUT IF YOU want the ultimate in cases that bring out raw emotion, consider the predicament of Troy Davis – who may well be dead by the time you read this.

DAVIS: Doomed?

Davis was the Death Row inmate in Georgia who has supporters claiming there is evidence he “didn’t do it” – which in his case involves the death of a police officer in Savannah.

A “cop killer!!!!!” That’s enough to make many people want to ensure he gets a death sentence. It stirs up the emotions in some people to the point where they don’t want to hear about any flaws in the evidence that was used to find him guilty by a jury in Georgia.

You can put the Georgia Board of Pardons and Paroles in that class. They rejected his final appeal for clemency on Monday. Unless someone came out of the woodwork on Tuesday to express sympathy (all too unlikely), he was doomed to die early Wednesday.

FOR THIS REASON alone, I’m pleased that Illinois has done away with the death penalty. For this is the ugly side of the capital punishment debate, and I am pleased we’re not going to have to cope with it any longer in our home state.

We’ll have enough ugliness expressed when Blagojevich gets sentenced, and Drew goes to trial.

  -30-

Do Peterson prosecutors top Blagojevich when it comes to whiny nature?

Today’s lesson in legal whining and nonsense is presented to us courtesy of the prosecutors in Will County who are taking on the case of “putting away” former Bolingbrook cop Drew Peterson.

PETERSON: A body-blow for prosecutors



They’re the ones who are upset that an Illinois appellate court this week ruled that they can’t use hearsay evidence in their case against Peterson, who faces criminal charges related to the death of wife number three (and whom some are convinced caused wife number four to “disappear”).

NOT THAT THEY’RE respecting the appeals court’s decision. Will County officials say they’re seriously thinking of asking the Illinois Supreme Court to get involved and overturn the appeals court panel.

Now I can comprehend why prosecutors are upset. This ruling will make it more difficult for them to get a conviction against Peterson. Heck, his attorneys are going around telling the newspapers that this ruling will result in his acquittal.

And if that happens, the people who are all worked up over Casey Anthony’s acquittal in a Florida courtroom will go back to treating her like the “nothing” that she is. Because they will have a new target for their outrage.

There are those people who want Drew Peterson to suffer every indignity imaginable. I’m sure they also are among those who will think the Will County prosecutors are somehow being picked upon.

YET A PART of me has a problem with the legal strategy that was being used by prosecutors against Peterson. If anything, the appeals court panel that ruled against prosecutors was merely upholding a strict interpretation of the “letter of the law.”

Nobody should have a problem with that.



BLAGOJEVICH: Has he been topped?



So what is the great controversy involving Peterson’s prosecution? The problem for prosecutors is that there is little hard evidence to support the idea that Peterson killed his third wife – whose death at one time was officially classified as accidental.

It was only when the public outcry over the disappearance of Peterson’s fourth wife grew to national scales that local officials “reinvestigated” the death of wife number three, and reclassified it as a homicide. That led to the charges that now are pending against Peterson, and result in him living for the past couple of years at the Will County Jail in Joliet.

PROSECUTORS WANT TO use letters from the two women that contain statements that, if interpreted in a certain context, could be construed as suspicious.

But they are regarded as “second-hand” statements and inadmissible because the women aren’t present to explain for themselves just what they meant. Which means that it would be evidence that Peterson could not properly refute during a trial.

He wouldn’t be able to cross-examine the letter-writers.

Which is why eight such statements have been stricken from use as evidence during any future trial of Peterson, and why prosecutors had hoped the appeals court panel would be more sympathetic.

THEY WERE NOT.

So now, we have the prosecutors in Will County upset because they are confronted with the fact that the physical evidence against Peterson is weak. This case could crumble, and the wrath of the nation could soon turn on them for failing to get a “guilty” verdict against Drew.

Which on the one hand would be bad because that man’s bloated ego would surely go about for the rest of his life believing he was unjustly wronged – and he’ll ensure we all have to listen to the misery he suffered.

But we have the system of justice based in that presumption of innocence until guilt is proven. If prosecutors can’t prove it, then the right thing is to move on.

INSTEAD, WE’RE GOING to hear continued whining about how the prosecutors aren’t being allowed to do their job – even if they have to rely on flawed “evidence” to do so. That is just wrong.

If anything, it bothers me even more than Rod Blagojevich’s whining earlier this week that the judge in his political corruption case is being mean to him – thereby requiring a new trial.

Anytime somebody’s behavior starts becoming comparable to that of Blagojevich, you know there’s a serious problem and that you should probably ease up.

Instead, we get people pushing for changes such as Drew’s Law, a measure that would make hearsay testimony acceptable in Illinois if a judge is willing to approve it.

THAT MEASURE IS just about as absurd as the Florida people who now want Caylee’s Law (making it a felony for a parent not to report their child missing within 24 hours).

Either way, it’s over-reaction, which may be the ultimate evidence that our judicial system has a certain warped balance. There is evidence that defendants , prosecutors AND outside observers are capable of behaving in a silly manner

  -30-

Is “old school” news style too tacky?

The Chicago Sun-Times gave us a news “exclusive” that reeks of the news mentality of decades past.

Drew Peterson, the one-time suburban Bolingbrook cop whom many people believe killed two of the four women he has been married to during his life, sent a letter to the Sun-Times, specifically to gossip columnist Michael Sneed. Considering that his telephone access to broadcasters who could put him on the air "live" is largely restricted, this seems to be his lone way of expressing himself.

SHE CAN NOW claim an “exclusive” on a two-part story that she largely didn’t write. The copy that made it into print is largely the text of Peterson’s letter – edited for space – in which he talks about the conditions of his life for the past year in the Will County Jail.

He takes his share of digs at other law enforcement types (he never became an Illinois State Police officer because his parents weren’t brother and sister and wonders if the jail officials who routinely strip-search him ever think about his naked image while having sex with their wives), and also talks about his incarceration itself (the food is “really isn’t that bad,” but “a step down from Army food.”)

By and large, it seems that Peterson believes he is being singled out for abuse by a society that is all prepared to believe the worst about him. It also seems that no matter how much many of us want to think of Rod Blagojevich as some sort of egotistical buffoon that Drew has him beat.

Milorod is Mister Humility compared to the former Bolingbrook police sergeant – who now faces criminal charges connected to the death of his third wife while investigators still try to resolve the disappearance of wife number four a few years ago.

READING THROUGH THE letter gives me a few cutesy details that appease the morbid side of my self-interest. For those who want to know, his cell in protective custody does not have bars. “I’m kept in solitary confinement on the reflective side of two-way glass,” he wrote.

And Peterson did make one observation that makes me wonder – “I haven’t figured out yet if I’m being protected from the other inmates or are they being protective from me?”

While I do realize there probably is some knucklehead currently incarcerated in the jail in Joliet who would think it proves him to be a “Big Man” if he were to shove a shank into Peterson’s back, I wonder how much Peterson’s treatment is so that Will County can avoid the embarrassment of letting something happen to him while he is in their custody.

Now I’ve already included more details from Peterson’s letter than I originally intended. Because my gut reaction to Peterson’s letter is different from the Internet-type commentary I am reading from people.

SOME ARE SICK enough to say publicly they want Peterson to be raped by other inmates, while others say it is insensitive to the public to give Peterson any kind of forum for communicating his thoughts.

My reaction is that this kind of copy seems like something from the days of The Front Page.

Those old-school days of Chicago journalism where being able to publish a real-life letter from a prominent inmate would have been regarded as a major coup for that particular newspaper – and one whose contents would have ensured that the Sun-Times would be having its copy picked up by newspapers across the nation as readers all over would lap up every little detail.

Now I’m sure that some people in the past would have expressed moral indignation at the idea of an inmate letter or diary. But I can’t help but sense we’re moving beyond that stage. Which makes me wonder if this latest column has the potential to cause embarrassment – although maybe not as much as the time then-Chicago broadcaster Giselle Fernandez got on board a speedboat with a convicted drug dealer to do a story about his final days of freedom.

BUT IT WILL be seen as a relic of the way that things used to be done? Which makes me wonder if Sneed is about to become the journalistic equivalent of old-school politicos like Dan Rostenkowski or George Ryan – whom some people argue were sent away to prison for engaging in hard-ball politics today the way they used to be done.

Or maybe that’s an over-reaction on my part.

Because we have enough of the “tabloid” television shows that give us graphic detail about all kind of sordid tales, and we the public seem to lap them up – demanding more while also issuing our meek denials about how offensive we found the whole experience to be. Which means we might not have changed as much as we want to believe we have.

For I have to admit the truth. As much as I want to believe I could care less about Peterson’s legal predicament, I read his whole letter that was published in the Sunday newspaper.

-30-