awesome news! Drew at least you'll get your 3 square meals you were excited about.

Now Drews lawyers will appeal with the State supreme court! Another delay in the trial!

It's about time that this murderer goes to trial......It's been way too long.

If there's an appeal! The trial will be delayed for months! Hearsay sucks!

The Illinois supreme court can still hear the appeal if Drews lawyers go that route. The ISC returned the hearsay ruling to the appellate court to try and resolve the matter which they did , thus there can be another appeal to the ISC.

Finally! Justice for Kathleen and Stacy will happen. Just a matter of time...

The problem here is that "ALL of our Rights" have been thrown out the window! Remember the statement "Justice is Blind" well now allowing hearsay is taking the blind fold off of the justice system. Basically in summary if the "System" wants someone to be guiltily now they can get it done. Just ask a friend "did this person ever say anything like this or that" well most of us have talked out our asses before and now be careful, it can make you guilty because they want you to be! This is not the right way to convict a person!

The wheels of justice turn very slowly.

What happened to " you have a right to face your accuser"

I'm pretty certain this already hit the Illinois Supreme Court. They kicked it back down to the appellate court and told them to figure it out. Not sure how much further this will go.

Either way. I'm on the fence on how I feel about it. While I think Peterson is as guilty as they come, this is a serious, serious change to think about. Allowing people to be tried on hearsay is a dangerous game.

Lopez says prosecutors don't have any evidence. I beg to differ since the hearsay is now being allowed as evidence.

Nobody, I agree. This is dangerous territory the courts are treading.

Bad decision. Dangerous precedent. The fact that the prosecution has to rely on hearsay evidence kind of speaks to the fact that they have no real physical evidence. Convicting Drew Peterson is NOT worth destroying everyone's right to a fair trial, and using such controversial evidence could easily backfire, resulting in an acquittal. Then, when Stacy's body surfaces, or physical evidence becomes available, he will be scot free and untouchable. Unwise, dangerous, destructive decision. Way to go Illinois courts.

If words from a dead person can now be told by anyone who knew that person or could have known that person in a court of law. Watch out the Salem witch trials are back. Hearsay is not evidence, I say Trayvon Martin told me he wanted to beat a white man, you cannot prove he didn't now what? If I live in the same complex as the shooting happen how do you prove my statement a lie. See, it's not a simple thing.

Its getting so old pandering to women. Its the in thing to do. I dont know anything about the case other than he was a cop and his wife turned up dead and another missing. This is the most absurd ruling a court can give. You see, elections have consequences in who appoints the judges that make up their own rules. The prosecutors can probably clean their backlog up now just using hearsay on hundreds if not thousands of cases. These judges need to step down, they no longer know what they are doing.

If a woman tells her priest, her best friend, her mother, her sister, her primary care physician, her therapist, her daughter's teacher, her hair dresser, her nail technician her etc that she thinks her husband is abusive and might try to kill her someday...that is beginning to look a bit like evidence to me. Then the young woman in questions shows up missing or dead. Guess what...her priest, her best friend, her mother, her sister, her primary care physician, her therapist, her daughter's teacher, her hair dresser, her nail technician her etc all come forward on their own to make statements to the police that the dead/missing woman feared for her life. At some point, citizens have to look out for each other. This is especially critical when there are sociopathic, evil people lurking among us. And, this is especially troubling when those sociopaths are police officers who know evasive criminal tactics, and where to hide bodies. Who protects the innocent victims...her priest, her best friend, her mother, her sister, her primary care physician, her therapist, her daughter's teacher, her hair dresser, her nail technician her etc These statements are relevant and should be allowed.

According to the Chicago Tribune the statements were allowed under PREVIOUS ILLINOIS COMMON LAW. The new statute which had been written regarding hearsay was rejected by the court. There is no expansion of the use of hearsay. It is the appellate court determining which hearsay is admissible. Some forms of hearsay have always been admissible EVIDENCE.

One big problem that will put doubt in a reasonable jurors mind! Which autopsy do you believe the first, second or third one ! Boy if that isn't putting doubt in a jurors mind finding someone guilty beyond a reasonable doubt! Who can say which autopsy is right or wrong!

What's contradictory in the autopsies?

First autopsy ruled an accident and the second alleged a homicide! Two conflicting autopsies. There's doubt for the jurors.

How's that not true! It's been in the papers and the news numerous times.

Joseph, maybe you should clarify this.

-First autopsy did not rule a homicide.
-Second autopsy did rule a homicide.

Help me understand how that's not true.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/topic/crime-law-justice/crimes/crime-victims/kathleen-savio-PECLB203720374435.topic

Lie? The pathologist findings on the first autopsy was an accidental drowning and the corners inquest concurred!

Mr. Moreli, I believe you are misinformed about Dr. Bryan Mitchell's autopsy, by wrongly stating that he said Kathleen Savio died by accident. He said she died by drowning. Why is that difficult to get across here? There's no conflict. Once again, it was the coroner's panel that said it was an accident, which panel, we later found out, was fed and given b.s. to make their determination. They should have been given the opportunity to find her death as being undetermined, since some of the panel members did not believe her death was accidental.

There's a lot of info out in the public, but, unfortunately, Peterson's attorney, Joel Brodsky, has spread a lot of crap as being true when, in fact, it's his defense attorney side of it.

Just sayin....

No, it wasn't. In fact, the word "accidental" does not appear in the pathologist's report at all. So do you not know what you're talking about or are you — for whatever reason — lying? Either way, please stop. It's not conducive to a healthy discussion.

It's difficult to argue a valid point when those who disagree wear blinders and refuse to acknowledge what the actual facts are.

The hearsay evidence is admissible under the present Rules of Evidence, and the omitted statements have been deemed admissible by the Appellate Court. The trial court is not being told to admit all of the hearsay; the trial court now has the matter back to decide what will be admitted. In other words, the Appellate Court is leaving it up to the trial court, but has told the trial court the hearsay is admissible within the Rules of Evidence. Why is that so difficult to comprehend? Nothing new here.

The autopsy by Dr. Brian Mitchell does not say he ruled her death accidental. His conclusion was she died by drowning.

Geesh.

I think Brodsky had a greater effect on many than I'd like to think. That's too bad. Good for him, but bad for the victim's family and friends as they look for justice.

If the jury believes, like many here, that Peterson killed Kathleen, but refuse to accept all of the evidence and aren't convinced beyond a reasonable doubt, then he'll get out of jail and be a free man.

There's no doubt that the jury will have to be those that will listen to what they hear in court, not what has been spewed across the Internet. They just need to evaluate the facts, not the inaccurate blog reports. You know, like the first coroner said she died by accident, but the following two said homicide. WRONG!!!!!!

:-)

The first autopsy will still put doubt in some jurors minds. It works for me too.

Next, state police officer Herbert Hardy represented the state police's opinion that the death was an accident. He wasn't the lead investigator in the case and had not visited the crime scene. But he said Drew Peterson had an alibi, corroborated by his wife, Stacy. "His current wife was interviewed, his job was interviewed, all those neighbors around in his area were—were talked to," Hardy testified. "We have no reason to believe at this time that . . . he was not where he said he was."

After just two witnesses and O'Neil's presentation of the pathology and toxicology reports, the jury took less than an hour (as one juror told Fox News anchor Greta Van Susteren) to determine that Kathy's death was accidental.

Yeah, he said they had no reason to believe he wasn't where he said he was. It was also said that they were waiting for the phone records. That is a lie, that is untrue, that is false, that is inaccurate. Those records were never even ordered. Those records would have shown that Peterson's wife was using her cell phone to call his when he was supposed to be in bed with her.

That doesn't show me he was where he was supposed to be. So, your point is???? If you want this guy out and about, that's your opinion. Fine. But don't continue to spread lies. I agree with Mr. Hosey that it is not contributing to a healthy discussion. It reminds me of one that is just lacking anything better to do but to stir the pot of controversy for the hell of it.

I'm sorry that you don't want to contribute to a valid discussion.

Ultimatley, God will take care of Peterson. His behavior in prison, with the media, everything about him screams guilty. If he were truly innocent, his behavior would be that of a greiving husband who is trying desperatley to locate the mother of his children. He also would've been mourning the death of Kathleen for longer than he did before he got remarried. Stacey figured out what happened to Kathleen and she paid dearly for that discovery. My heart goes out to the children and family members who will forever have to live with what this rotten peice of #$@! did. Pray it's not an innocent verdict like the Casey Anthony & OJ Simpson cases....but it is possible.

Anyone recall the " Win A Date With Drew Peterson " contest, sponsored by none other than the greiving widower and now accused ?

Tawanda, you keep referring to Drew Petersen as a widower, and the evidence as words from the deceased. Do you know something that, legally, the rest of us do not? Stacy Petersen is missing, not dead. Drew Petersen is NOT a widower, legally, so to say he isn't "grieving" means what? Why would he grieve someone who, as he claims, left him cold? Not to mention that assuming one should grieve in a certain way or they are a murderer is ludicrous. You can hate somebody and wish them death by mauling. It doesn't make you a murderer any more than evidence of "she said he said" does. If the prosecution really needs to rely on flimsy "she said, he said", from a missing person they can't even prove is dead, they have a weak case.

Sheila,
When his own step brother comes forward and says, Drew asked him to rent a storage unit, asks him to remove a blue barrel from the upstairs bedroom, don't you find that odd? Why would a blue barrel of that size be in an upstairs bedroom? Especially that at one time might of had chemicals in it to ruin floors, carpeting etc? What could he have possibly had in there up in the master bedroom? Why would he ask his step brother to sit at a park with his cell phone, and don't answer it if Stacy calls? Don't you think he would want to know where she is? Keep her on the phone so they could track her location? Where did Drew go? And why did he ask his brother to keep his phone? All of this, and numerous other odd behaviors of Drew before and after Stacy went missing doesn't lead you to believe he was involving his step brother to establish an alibi, and cover up yet another murder? Oh then he says Stacy called him at 9 to say she is leaving with another man, and the car is at the airport. Ok ......so then while doing an interview he is asked why he was down at the canal due to cell phone pings from one of the towers, which was way later then the 9 o'clock phone call. Drew's answer?He says he was down in the area by the canal looking for Stacy somewhere he thought she might be, and looking for his car. Hmmm, looking for his car!! Thought it was at the airport! Grieving? What's to grieve when you rid of your wife so she couldn't turn you in for the previous wife!

Amen to that Watchful Eye! They also fail to remember how he had his buddy come over with a cell phone for him to use so that the police couldn't listen to his phone calls, and was writing notes and shredding them in a shredder so the police couldn't get them out of the garbage. Why would a grieving, pissed off, even worried husband do this, if he had nothing to hide? A guy who tracked his wives, and girlfriends everywhere they went, showed up where they were, had his buddies following them around, doesn't know where his wife is at? Yeah right! Ran off with some mystery man, that nobody knows about, or heard about. Oh yea she is just missing! Poof! Been gone since Oct 2007 with no trace of her anywhere. No money trails, no sightings, no nothing! Funny she went to the Pastor, which Drew knew she was with him, and even called the Pastor afterward to let him know she was there. She went to see an atty about a divorce, which I am sure he knew about, then she just poof! Disappears! oh yeah ran off with some mystery man! Oh wait he led them to believe it was her friend from Shorewood, that she had lunch with! Ooops he knew about that too!! He even showed up there, because he GPS tracked her to the local Denny's there in town! For someone who knew where she was every waking minute, even coming home while on duty, and on break, why didn't he know where she was then? He knows where she is!! He knows what happened to her! They need to read up on the whole case, and get the facts!