"I would put your body where no one would ever find it."
"I would 'Keep it simple, stupid.' A simple knifing in an alley and a missing wallet; it would look like a robbery."
"I would make sure a good amount of time passed between taking out the insurance policy and your death."
"If I just pull up your feet in the bathtub, your head would go under the water, you would drown, and there would be no marks on your body."
"All I would have to do is get a condom from the bushes in the park, pull the pants down on your corpse and dump the contents on your butt. They will think you were getting it on with someone and they got violent and killed you.:"
None of the above are Drew Peterson's statements.
All of the above are comments from conversations I have had in the company of police officers, police detectives, private investigators, and crime analysts. Which is exactly why hearsay is normally not allowed in court. People say a lot of stuff, they joke around, they say things in anger, they say things people take out of context or remember incorrectly, and, even if they meant what they said, it doesn't mean they acted upon it. Add to this someone simply claiming things were said that were never said and you have a pretty good idea why until recently in Illinois, hearsay was not considered dependable "evidence" upon which to convict someone.
I think Drew Peterson is a psychopath and that he is damned likely to have committed a homicide or two, but there is no real evidence that he actually did. The jury should never have convicted him. He will appeal, and I believe the verdict will be overturned (even if it has to go all the way to the Supreme Court). The trial was a travesty of the justice system, and even if we aren't too bent out of shape over Drew Peterson being convicted, the same thing could happen to anyone of us and then it wouldn't be quite so palatable.
Criminal Profiler Pat Brown
September 7, 2012