so where did all you people get your education from, since you're all so smart?

obviously, not in america where everyone just comes out of the system dumb and dumber right?

Reminds me of a joke from Mystery Science Theatre 3000: "Yay, it's anonymous!"

"Defense attorney Ralph Meczyk said he thinks it [the question "What does 'unanimous' mean?] means a hung jury."

Defense counsel is grasping at straws. I think they found him guilty.

The Jury said "they have a verdict", if it was "a hung jury" that would NOT be a "verdict"!

Jessica,

Anyone graduating form any school in the US, even those who just make it to middle school should know what unanimous means. If a single person on the jury did not know that that means, we are in serious trouble.

We really should go to a professional jury. One that is intelligent. One that would reasonably question what the lawyers and experts say. One that would not be easily confused by the experts.

YES! They found this piece of scum guilty!

How do they find someone guilty of murdering someone twice? Two counts of murder?

I wonder if he was still smirking when they said "Guilty"? Now hopefully they'll get him to admit what he did with wife #4's body.

Drew Petersen, the Policeman who is a Murderer.

Thank goodness the Justice System finally after 8 years, found this jerk guilty. It could of easily been dismissed--the Jurors did a thorough job, making it unaminous.

Drew Petersen is still a happy guy (with his video cam)--even now. He is a definite Psychopath.

What ever happened to his last wife? Further investigations should go on--

May all the families who had women married to this monster be at peace, and experience Closure---

While the police botched the initial investigation, leaving the forensics a mess. It was the hearsay evidence from Stacy Peterson's pastor and her lawyer that tipped the scales against Mr. Peterson. It's especially damning that the defense called the lawyer and he presented pretty compelling hearsay against Mr. Peterson. The fact that the lawyer was THEIR witness will make it almost impossible to appeal on his testimony as hearsay. They will have to appeal on the testimony of the pastor.

finally, someone focusing on the real news here. Thank god they did the right thing, even if they didn't know what unanimous means (and they weren't too proud to ask).

awwww, whats the matter laker boy? did feisty hurt your poor widdle feelings?

differnet:

The guilty verdict would have never happened, nor Drew Petersen be tried for Murder, if it weren't for the hearsay of Petersen's Pastor and Stacy's Attorney. You are correct.

There may be an Appeal due to these kind of circumstances--- Hearsay may not be in the Illinois Book of Murder Laws.

He must stay in Jail---.

As guilty as this P.O.S. probably is, I have no doubt the conviction will be overturned on appeal and a new trial ordered. This trial allowed many "firsts" when it came to a criminal trial. Hearsay evidence was half of the evidence presented to the jury and the judge twice should have ordered a mistrial when the prosecution violated court orders not to present certain evidence. It will be overturned..... Unfortunately....

My son in the 3rd grade knew what unanimous meant.

Laker Steve A little strong, but funny none the less.

KimV Lighten up! When you call Steve a horrible person you must be forgetting how offensive Feisty and Beverly are some times. Maybe not to you, but offensive to others, none the less.

plork

We seldom agree, but this time I MUST agree with you. I'm fearful of what graduates from the educational system today. They have difficulty making change at the register even when the register tells them the amount to return. To watch them use their fingers to count out change is very disturbing.

He is guilty. The evidence was there all you had to do was listen. Some of you didn't listen to the testimony and none of us were there all the time for all of it. Stop taking one word and having a hissy fit about it. How many of you have served on a jury.

Guilty on heresay...............hmmmmmmmmm

Screw this pig and EVERY OTHER peace officer that believes they are above the law. In an ideal world, convicted law enforcement would be sentenced to punishments twice as harsh as civilians. Why? Because when a person who is EXPECTED TO LEAD BY EXAMPLE exploits their position of authority under the belief that they are above the law it makes a mockery of the entire legal/justice system.

I truly wish I could say to the real Stacey, yes. But, sadly, I'm afraid I can't. Even police believe she is dead.

I have not followed the trial at all, but why are there 2 counts?

Well now, if juries were comprised solely of the top minds in our country they wouldn't really be a jury of "peers" would they?

I think we can all admit to avoiding jury duty to the best of our abilities.

No, we can't. I've gotten out of it once because I was a student, and once because I had recently moved out of that county, but when I had no legitimate excuse, I went and did my duty, including acquitting a guy in a case that should never have come to trial.

One of my most fervent hopes is that if I ever need a jury, it will have at least one juror like I think I was: a courageous person who considers it his duty, and he's glad to do it - "for the justice".

I do not see this verdict standing up on appeal. There were simply too many things that happened that should have resulted in a mistrial, such as the prosecution mentioning things they were told were not admissible. I do not know if there will be a new trial ordered or if the appellate court will simply throw out the verdict as not supportable by the evidence. I also have a big problem with all of the hearsay evidence that was presented, I do not think it should have been allowed.

Gee what a stupid jury.

What is even worse and being missed here is this is also a sign of many of our current police force. Not don't get me wrong, I don't think all are like this but just way too many. They are dozens of police officers and FBI agents charged with pedophillia/child porn in 2012 alone, not to mention how many should be charged with murder and or assault.

We really need another group( then themselves) to police the police and charge them.

Now they need to put all of the other officers on trial that covered up for Peterson.

They could of asked for a dictionary to look up "unanimous". But drews attorney would think they wanted to look up how to spell hung jury. what a loser! they more than likely really all agreeing to his guilt but couldn't think of the word for it. UNANIMOUS! his defense team is just as cocky and arrogant and sickening or even worse than Casey Anthony's defense team.

did MSNBC edit the article? The word "unanimous" isn't even mentioned once in the entire piece........this message board is quite confusing out of context.

I think many of the gentle posters missed this statement. For now it is the law, like it or not. This scumbag is the worst kind of cop, and I hope he sees some prison justice. Why let killer like Peterson and Casey Anthony walk.

"Hearsay, or a statement not based on the direct knowledge of a witness, isn't usually admissible in court, but Illinois passed a law in 2008, dubbed "Drew's Law," that allowed it in rare circumstances"

http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/clout_st/2008/11/house-passes-dr.html

Hi, I am Pigotry ................... - to introduce myself to all of you--

Anyways.....Who is this Perterson guy? what did he do...?

Catinahat: I think you should speak for yourself. I have served jury duty 3 times. Not because I "wasn't smart enough" to get out of it, I actually qualified for several reasons to be able to skip out, but because if those of us with an ounce of brains don't go, our legal system will be swayed by a bunch of inept idiots who don't know how to base the verdict on the letter of the law, and not their own personal feelings. I have also instilled this sense of honor in my daughter who got her first jury summons before she was 20. She was disappointed that, after diligently calling the required number to see if she had to actually appear, she was never required to go. She is also excited about her first presidential election. We need more young people to have a sense of civic duty. Not just voting, but to participate in the legal system we are trying so hard to keep from going down the tubes.

What will you do, Cat, if you are accused of some horrific crime that you did not do, and you end up with a bunch of dorks with sagging pants who don't give a rat's azz about anything but checking "guilty" so they can get out the door as quickly as possible... oh, wait, they WOULD be YOUR peers...

I be agreein wit whoeva be sayin people be gettin mo stupid rond here. (sarcasm people)

It is true how our society is being dumbed down. Do we blame schools? TV? Parenting? I say its a combo of all. Sad days ahead people.

As far as this chump Drew......have fun in the pokey jag bag. I live in Chicago and this was pushed in our faces everyday by the media. His clowning around, the arrogance and basically just being a total prick. I know I know according to the law he should not have been found guilty but then again there are plenty of cases where the person should have been guilty and they walk (OJ). I say this evens things out.

I have to agree with plork on Americans getting dumber and dumber. We have more information readily available but people are too dumb to access it. I wonder how many Americans know that North America includes Canada and Mexico or that Africa is not a country.

I was listening to NPR (National Public Radio) a few months ago and employers are facing a real problem with new hires, with degrees, who cannot construct a business letter or memo. One employer said he had to transfer one of his employees to a different department because the employee did not have the right writing skills needed for the job he was hired for. Too many people think it is okay to use text message abbreviations in the business world and get offended when they are told they cannot do that.

sure a lot of murders in Chiago!

Last Girl,

Funny how they pointed out that the people applying get offended when they are told they cant use the text message talk. Just shows how the younger generations are all about me, me, me. "Oh no someone hurt my feelings". My response would be; get used to it kid, life is rough get a helmet. The other sad thing is when you tell one of these younger kids something like "no Africa is a continent" the response is usually "so, why do I care". And I am 32 and I see a huge change with people younger than me and alot of people my age. Christ, what has this country become?

I guess he was wrong when he told her he could kill her and get away with it!

Sweet Justice!

It's important to remember that narcissists often seek out positions of power such as doctors, police, public office, etc. Such people should never be held above suspicion.

The United States has scored near the bottom, very-very near the bottom on all scholastic ability examinations for the past 30 years. This has been a slow, steady decline in the education of the general public. The reason: budget cuts for education, a lack of teachers with teaching ability (why work at peanuts when you can earn real money using your brain?) and on and on. The issue of the 'dumbing of America' along with shutting down state mental hospitals began under Reagan and has not stopped. In fact, it has gained speed. Now, we are at the point where some third world countries are actually better educated than folks from the good old USA!!! Now whose fault is that? Look in the mirror for your answer.

Peterson "will never be able to hurt another woman again," Pam Bosco, spokeswoman for the family of Stacy Peterson, said outside the courtroom, the Sun-Times reported.

I think Bubba gonna put a "big hurt " on Mr. Peterson when he goes to jail

this will not stand because you cannot be convicted on heresay alone. He will get out watch. Yes, I think he did it, but there is no evidence in my opinion.

Drew...gon'a boo hoo...as it go's into the wazoo...at the human zoo...

Well. this will get overturned on appeal. The hearsay law has to be unconstitutional. Based on a law specifically written to apply to his case? No, clearly unconstitutional. And the "evidence" presented in the case is hardly anything near compelling. No unbiased jury could find this guy guilty, regardless of the high the likelihood that he is.

The little stunt with the jury dressing alike as a show of unity during the trial will be enough to throw this out. Unified about what? That they had already made up their minds before the trial was over? Even if they were "unified" that they would seek justice, the jury is supposed to be about unbiased individuals. No appeals' judge can overlook this little stunt.

With all the press this received for years before it ever came to trial, there is no way that the jury could not have been exposed to the case and previously had opinions. They would have had to have held the trial in the Artic Circle to have had an unbiased jury.

A previously autopsied dead body ruled an accidental death, is exhumed 3 years later and they find enough evidence to call it murder? That's insane. Even if they could in any wave prove that the body exhibited bruising and signs of forcible trauma at the first autopsy, it would have been questionable at best that it was murder and even less evident who did it. But not noticed then, they conclude that from a corpse that was rotting in a coffin underground for 3 years, the "new" evidence was conclusive? Seems like better evidence would have been some psychics stating they talked with her dead spirit and she told them.

It may be "just" in many peoples minds that he deserved to be convicted, but it is a travesty of the justice system. Anyone associated with this case needs to be ashamed of themselves. We can not take the justice system and turn it into a poll of popular opinion, even if that opinion is of the assigned jury. This guy may very well deserve to be convicted on some moral grounds, however that is not what the justice system is about. If allowed to stand, this conviction just serves as a mockery of the system. This was a criminal trial, not a civil trial. The jury can not be free to take such liberties of interpretation in a criminal trial. At best they could only conclude reasonable suspicion, not a conviction beyond the shadow of doubt.

Sorry, to all who want to see this guy hang, but it just isn't right.

For those who think the jury came to the wrong conclusion for lack of physical evidence, what do you think the outcome of Casey Anthony's trial should have been?

I'm happier now..

The outcome of Casey Anthony was correct if you base it on a judge's instructions to the jury. They had no evidence proving her story about drowning wasn't true. They had no evidence Casey purposefully intended to harm her child.

Unfortunately our justice system is intended to prevent convictions based on the "DUUUUUHH Factor", as I like to call it. It may not take a genius to know that Casey's lies and cover ups made her the obvious choice, just like Drew's attitude and behavior made him the obvious choice. The evidence only strongly suggests that there was a murder in both cases, but the fact that medical examiners couldn't even agree generates reasonable doubt in itself.

Add to that the fact that neither prosecution team in both Casey's and Drew's cases could put the defendants at the scene of the crime at the time of death and both should have had too much reasonable doubt to yield a guilty verdict. The ability to put 2 and 2 together is not an acceptable method of ruling guilty according to our constitution.

Don't get me wrong I fully believe both are guilty as sin, but if I were in a position where I had to perform my civic duty I would definitely need to be more responsible than that of the armchair detectives on this forum. The term is "guilty BEYOND a reasonable doubt" and neither of these cases can make that claim when you look at the evidence presented.

There is both the possibility that both deaths were the results of an accident and there is also the possibility that someone else committed the murders, because there were no witnesses, no DNA and (in the case of Casey) no crime scene. Because of thee facts there is definitely reasonable doubt, not a large possibility of doubt, but reasonable doubt.

Unfortunately the "standard" many use is they "think" someone is guilty. But whether or not you think the defendant is guilt, is not the question at hand. The question is whether or not the prosecution proved beyond the shadow of doubt that the person is guilty. Many might think that is the same thing, but it isn't necessarily so. Thinking someone is guilty may come from how the individual behaves, or what he looks like, the way he reacted to questions, or a just a gut perception that he is a worthless human being. But none of these is proof. That is the standard. But often prosecutions play on perceptions. This why a lot of "stereotypical" suspects get convicted without hard evidence. Since the advent of DNA evidence, every year a good number of convicted criminals who had been sitting in prison are found to be not guilty because of real evidence. What that tells us is that juries made mistakes. They thought someone was guilty, but was it proved so, or did they just pperceive it based about some things that aren't really evidence?

Okay everyone on here is talking more about stupid and uneducated people than the outcome of the trial. But what I find most disturbing is the most people still dont understand what circumstantial evidence is. That is why Casey Anthony got off. The jurors said they thought she was guilty but they needed to know what , where, why and how. Well every prosecution would love to go into a case having all of this. They said it was a strong circumstantial case - they admitted it was and they all knew that this is the kind of case it was going into it. They didnt have a clue!!! I didnt follow this trial and I must say that I was surprised at the verdict and maybe it will be overturned on appeal which will take a long time - but the reason for heresay etc. is that it is a circumstantial. Can you take all the pieces of what the trial provided and come out of it feeling the guy is guilty. Look at the Scott Peterson trial. No body and no concrete evidence tieing him to the murders but the circumstances of what they had he was convicted. His defence lawyer didnt even put on a defense he was so sure Scott Peterson would be found not guilty. I didnt follow the trial so I dont know if the verdict was fair or right but I will tell you one thing - this guy, Drew Peterson has some major problems and I for one will be happy to see him behind bars at least or until it is overturned. I think women will be more safe now and hopefully he wont be able to find another gullible wife who meets with the same demise of the others.

Wow, not only will Drew get out on appeal, he will sue the already broke State of Illinois for millions. I Hope all you that are happy are living in bliss.

Angry guy....Why are you such an angry guy?

I just have to wonder if Drew Peterson will still have that sh*t eatin' grin on his face when he's getting cornholed in prison?

This is the best news I have heard in ages. Now I am ready for this monster to be tried for the murder of wife number four.

I think may of you have gone waay off the topic!!!! Likely many of you haven't been following this case for years and years if you don't know why this POS should be convicted. People have DIED horrifically and many of you are sitting here commenting about the intelligence of the jury!!! What the hell is the matter with you???? Have some concern and compassion for Petersons victims and their families for christs sake!!!!! Do you give a damn about why police offices get away with assualt abuse and murder??? As much as I can't stand feisty what the hell does feisty really have to do with this story??? Why do anyone of you even give a good god damn what feisty thinks???? Whats happened to americans that care more about being smartass then victims of violence???

Peterson may very well appeal this case. But hopefully, the other inmates will get a shot at giving Peterson a taste of his own medicine and the justice he so truly deserves before an appeal ever happens!!!!

The jury was approved not just by the prosecution side, but also by the defense side. If either side did not like the answers to the questions they gave potential jury members, then that person was excused. That is why this is called a jury of your peers.

Peterson's defense team were equally responsible for the jury that was seated, so the defense could have disallowed anyone. The jury deliberated and made their decision.

Do you or I think it was the right decision -- who cares what you or I think. The only decision that was important was the one the jury made.

mike: well hung, or just hung? But seriously, the presence of simpletons on many juries would actually help explain why so many innocent people get convicted, though there are lots of other contributions to that mess (forensics errors, police errors, prosecutorial fudging, incompetent lawyers, etc). And based on the numbers I've heard, wrongful convictions concern me even more than wrongful acquittals, especially when the death penalty is involved.

He's no more guilty than O.J. or Michael Jackson were. What's the difference??????

News Flash! The foreman's name was Studly B. Hungwell

This one didn't!

The different is they didn't have 4 back to back situations where their wives ended up murder you dumb f~~

lol Your just a racist and sad close minded individual. Dont forget to vote for Romney Lmao hahahahah

Mike, I was called for jury duty several years ago and got assigned to a DUI/reckless driving case. We ultimately found the defendant not guilty because the prosecution had not PROVEN THEIR CASE BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT. That's how it works in this country.......REASONABLE DOUBT.

I'm not an "idiot" either; I have an IQ of 140. I got called to serve, told the truth when questioned by counsel, and did my civic duty as instructed by the judge.

Until you're in that courtroom, listening to the judge's instructions, the attorney's arguments, and the testimony of the witnesses, you can't honestly say what the "right" call is, or genuinely flag anyone as an "idiot". That being said, my personal feeling is that Drew Peterson is guilty as sin.

You're right on. The judge's instructions change everything.

WHY are there so many dumb comments here about the meaning of the word unanimous?

Have you people ever been on a jury which must reach a verdict in a homicide case? The members of the jury take their responsibility very seriously.

If one member of the 12 member jury is not certain of the exact definition of a word, then that issue must be resolved. Asking the judge to define the word for that jury member is the correct way to handle this situation. That way the jury member knows he or she has received correct information from the judge.

Well it was times past and other Cultures. That the Intelligentsia, being the ones with Ground, Gold and Gall of Supremancy. There were assigned to the judicial in ancient Rome

Well it didn't work to well then, the jury of the Smart (snark) one's had other things to do

Maybe education of the masses, Oh Well it can be a try

Heck, no. This conniving AH is way smarter than the jury. He's counting on their stupidity to set him free.

Have you looked up the definition of peers?

...they are not a jury of my peers.

Where are they going to find 12 people whose third wives/spouses are dead from drowning in dry bathtubs and fourth wives/spouses are missing because they ran off with other lovers?

Dirp- Really? You think this guy is innocent? Hmmm how many dead & missing spouses does it take to raise a red flag with you? How many people do you know with a track record like that? Where there's smoke, there's fire. Since he got arrested has he at all acted like someone in shock and disbelief? He's been hamming it up for the cameras like its a big joke, just like Bundy. Get real

missing because they ran off with other lovers?

Missing despite worldwide news coverage for what, 4 or 5 years now? Nobody goes missing that long without someone seeing you, family hearing from you, bank records, or some other kind of hint that you are still alive.

Stacy didn't take her children and there was no activity on her bank accounts. Friends and family say she would never leave her children. I believe them. I've read too many of these cases and I see the signs. The police know those signs very well and they think she's dead. Seeing DP's blatant narcissistic behavior further convinces me.

If you do not have an extensive knowledge of psychology and/or you have never read a lot of true crime cases, you are really not much of an expert. However this jury was comprised, they knew enough about abnormal human behavior to convict him. I applaud them for that. It would be horrible if he walked.

And from what I have read, Stacy loved her children and would not leave them. It would be nice to think she is alive somewhere but if she was I think she would have returned by now, especially with the S.O.B. husband in jail.

I think this arrogant piece of crap got exactly what he deserved. He's acted all along like he thought he was too smart to be convicted, but like Laura 906 said, "how many missing/dead wives does it take to raise a red flag"? Anyone who thinks those are all just "coincidences" needs to open their eyes. Just the fact that he tried to solicit two different people to murder her is enough to convince me of his guilt. Innocent people don't go around trying to hire people to kill their wives.

definition of... peers= a group of people piss'n in the wind...

They never had to be a jury of your peers, just his.

Mike 277

People were smarter then! And the country was going to hell in a handbag - THEN

All Democrats, no doubt.

nycguy, BRAVO!!! I can't stop laughing because it is SO true!! Obama has and wants to continue to ruin our country and make us a Socialist nation. As far as Drew Peterson is concerned, the slime ball deserves to be put away for life irregardless of the stupid question by the jury. Most of us cannot begin to imagine the stress of being on a jury much less for a murder trial so who knows why the question was asked. You've got twelve different personalities in a room with different levels of education and maybe one person didn't know what it meant and in exhaustion, frustration... who knows, wanted someone other than another jury member telling them what unanimous meant. We're all speculating here. Regardless, he was found guilty by all and I applaud them. Two wives, one missing and presumed dead, the other dead by suspicious means, the way he handled it, didn't handle it and getting involved so fast with a much younger woman, from all I've heard, read and seen on the news through the years he looked and acted completely guilty. Despite my earlier comment this isn't about presidents. Our education system is lacking severely and kids shouldn't be passed to the next grade or graduated if they can't read, write or know even the basic definitions of our vocabulary. I think it happens more than we think it does.

@A'lesa, how can your breathe with your head up Rush Limpballs' butt? Are you aware that Fox "News" is inaccurate 70% of the time (according to multiple independent fact checking organizations). How can any decent person get behind that?

The truth lies in seeing things for what they really are, not just what you want or do not want them to be.

Believing one's own lies is a sign of narcissism and in my opinion, mental illness.

marinmom, Really? I don't know anyone personally up Rush Limbaugh's butt nor do I listen to him. I for one have my own opinions as do you and everyone here. I can see for myself what the current President has done and is doing to this great country. Why don't you research it for yourself and not rely on any ones opinion or the news on television or radio and form your own opinion, you might be surprised by what you learn.

Why is it that something I said struck such a nerve? To fall so far down to demean someone in the way you did shows such a lack of class and self respect, it's sad.

If you would have read the whole statement you would have seen it was about this case. The first statement I made was in response to nycguy of which is my right and my opinion of which I do not back down from.

You have my forgiveness for your crassness and my prayers that whatever it is that angers you, you can deal with. Did you know that anger comes from fear? Know that I will keep you in my prayers and that you will come to the full knowledge and grace of Jesus Christ.

God bless.

You know what, you said some things in your post that weren't too bright. Then you tell someone you will pray for them for answering your post. We all have opinions. You didn't need to be so disrespectful. You maybe need to pray for yourself for being so narrow minded. It seems that if one doesn't agree with you, they need prayer. Now is that Christian? Give me a break and please do not pray for me, I don't need anymore problems.

Poor hairhopper. I didn't say I would pray for them answering my post I said I would pray for them for low class name calling. That isn't by any means disrespectful. What nerve have I struck in you? I will pray for you as well. God Bless you.