Innocent Until Proven Guilty
Frank Borelli
Editor-in-Chief
Officer.com
In the news for the past several months has been an on-going story about retired Sergeant Drew Peterson and his missing wife. Let me specify: his missing fourth wife.
As I watch the news coverage it occurs to me that some of our media outlets slant every article to make it seem like Sgt. Peterson has to be guilty but isn’t being properly investigated by the involved law enforcement agencies. Most recently I saw an entire 90 second prime time news piece about Sgt. Peterson’s willingness to participate in a dating game for a radio station.
Okay. Maybe that’s in bad taste (I think it is). Maybe I’m cynical because more than two decades of police work has caused me to expect people to act in a disappointing fashion (Well, not “maybe”. I know I’m cynical.) Maybe a husband whose wife is missing should be acting more distraught, spending more energy supporting the search for her (or her remains). Those are a few “maybe”s.
Let me share a reality: some people do get away with murder. Our judicial system is set up to support that statement, “Innocent until proven guilty.” The burden of proof falls to the state or federal prosecutors and quite often they are not the most experienced of attorneys. I firmly believe we have the most fair and just court system in the world.
The statement “Innocent until proven guilty” applies to everyone (and as a cop you know there are times I really am not happy about that!). Whether or not the gloves fit; whether or not a man is partying while his wife is missing; whether or not a body is even found… The fact still remains: innocent until proven guilty. And if a man (or woman) is innocent, then why should any of us treat them otherwise?
I’m not saying that Sgt. Peterson and I are going to become drinking buddies. I’m not saying I think he played a hand in his most recent wife’s disappearance. I’m not saying he didn’t. What I’m saying is that I believe it’s wrong to vilify the man because he behavior isn’t what you think your behavior would be in the same circumstance. Truth be told: all we know of his circumstances is what the mainstream media has reported - and we know how accurate they can be, right?
Your thoughts?
These are valid points and well articulated. I agree on all counts. I think the reason that there has been a tendency to vilify Drew is that as human beings, all of us are picking up his body language, which oozes arogance. Psychologically, most of us proces this without even realizing we are doing it — we attack him for his words or his obvious behaviors (such as the dating game fiasco). His words, taken at face value without the addition of his body language, are troubling enough. When we see him speak, we consciously or unconsciously also interpret his body language — something many of us may not be able to attack as easily as his words, but which, taken by itself, triggers our own human instincts to warn us of his danger to our society.
“Truth be told: all we know of his circumstances is what the mainstream media has reported - and we know how accurate they can be, right?”
All we know of Drew and his circumstances are reported by the media AS TOLD BY- friends & family of Stacy Peterson, family and ex friends of Drew, former wives/girlfriends, court documents, Kathleen Savio’s family, neighbors, a pastor…and let’s not forget Drew and his attorney Joel Brodsky THEMSELVES. You are making it seem as though the media has pulled their information about Drew out of thin air. Drew may as well tatoo his forehead with the words “I am a multiple wife murderer” because his actions (as well as mounting evidence) are making it JUST as loud and clear. Yes, innocent until proven guilty- what a wonderful justice system we have. DREW WILL BE PROVEN GUILTY.
I think Drew is being accused based on alot more than media slant, and you as a police officer should know that.
Cadavar dog hits?
An abudancy of lies?
(That’s an understatement, I can’t even begin to list them.)
At least 6 whitnesses to different events he denies.
As a police officer you know, I am sure, while the media can slant the public opinion, the evidence (even circumstancial) speaks for itself.
Drew is not being villified by the media. Drew is his own worst enemey with all of the (bad) lieing, and accusations that everyone around him is either a liar, crazy, or out to get him.
Fine and good, but deep down in your heart you wouldn’t want your daughter out on a date with him until you know for sure.
Officer Borelli states: “And if a man (or woman) is innocent, then why should any of us treat them otherwise?”
Sorry, but your line of logic is flawed. An individual compared to the legal system are clearly two very different entities. Yes, our legal system does have the obligation and responsibility to treat Peterson as innocent until and unless a court finds different and he is entitled to that protection.
But, a social community or an individual is not bound by the legal system in that way and for good reason. We have the right and ability to make judgement and have personal opinions based on what we know, learn and suspect. These opinions, for an intelligent and reasonable person, help us make everyday decisions with those we will interact with. This is human nature. We use our inner ‘red flags’ everyday as guides.
Based on what has been reported, based on Peterson being named a suspect, plus a bit of common sense and I ask you, would you want your daughter to date him? I am sure you have honed your inner judgement system and already have an answer. Drew Peterson is entitled to full presumption of innocence. If needed, he will have his day in court. But, I have every right to express my opinion in an appropriate way and act reasonably on that; which in this case would be to have no association with Peterson should the opportunity arise and warn those I know about my feelings.
Here is my recommended reading for you: The Gift of Fear by Gavin DeBecker.
I think this is a great little expose of your opinion, and in part I agree with you. Along with our judicial system of innocent until proven guilty..The burden being on the state to PROVE GUILT. We have the first amendment..Freedom of speech. Drew takes full advantage of that amendment..as does his crackerjack attorney. They repeatedly FEED THE MEDIA frenzy…IMO they WANT the public to think Drew guilty. They’re setting up for unfair trial, new jurisdiction, appeals, etc…I have no doubt that as long as Peterson keeps his wrinkly mug out there, keeps acting like an jerk, and continues to verbally rape Stacey and her character..the media will report it. If nothing else, it keeps the search for Stacey alive…and yeah, it continues to put nails in his own coffin.
Drew Peterson has a documented history which points to his guilt.
He has abused the system of which he was a civil servant and promised to uphold.
He has used his police status to stalk and hold his previous wife hostage, for three hours, in her home by breaking into it and threatning her. (Of which she was later found dead in a dry bathtub)
He has history of stalking and tracking not only three of the 4 wives, but also of a previous fiance.
He has associated himself with shady characters who have criminal backgrounds. (how many cops do you know that do that?)
He has mocked the system, mocked the media, mocked the grieving family of Stacy Peterson (his fourth wife who is missing and presumed dead, of which he is the named prime suspect.)
He has publicly mocked both Stacy and his previous wife, Kathleen…the mothers of his children.
He has never shown an ounce of concern over any of the “recovered” bodies in and around the Bolingbrook and Chicago area. (Even if we were to believe she ran off, why would he not have any fears that one of those could have been Stacy who may have been assaulted and killed before she “ran-away” with the so-called $25,000? Only a man who knows she is already dead would not give forth the effort.)
Drew Peterson has not been found “guilty” by the media…he’s already been found guilty by the general population that spans from Australia to the Eastern coasts of America and all these guilty verdicts are due to his documented history of his previous actions…and present.
This goes much deeper than he looks like a duck and walks like a duck….this man smells, acts, eats, sleeps, and breathes like a duck. One guilty duck I say.
The idea that his wife left the house without her cell phone, how does that happen, if she left with another man, she could have tossed the cell later. Also the children left silent, not seen by Stacy’s family to speak… Drew and his lawyer both think this is all a joke with no respect to human life…
Nah, “innocent until proven guilty” doesn’t apply to everyone. It is a legal concept applicable in law enforcement and legal settings.
It’s not wrong for people–even people in the aforementioned roles– to form and express opinions on the case. Sure, it would be inappropriate to *act* in any way that suggests that I have concluded guilt if, say, I were the arresting officer. But even then, it would not be inappropriate to have an opinion. You do know what they say about opinions, right? *Everybody’s* got one. Anyone who says he’s reserving judgment isn’t quite telling the truth.
But while we’re on the topic of caution when forming opinions–and more to the point, the importance that law enforcement exercise this caution—it needs to be pointed out that this restraint should go in TWO directions.
Those who formed the opinion that a police sergeant whose wife was found brutalized in a dry bathtub couldn’t possibly have harmed her because—well, he’s a cop, and he *said* he didn’t do it–miscarry justice just as egregiously as those who beat the crackhead before throwing him into a cell.
It is clear I’m not the only one a bit tired of being scolded for arriving at a conclusion prematurely. But I know that my opinion is worth…well, not a thing. It won’t affect how justice is carried out. It won’t affect Drew Peterson. The only thing it will do is keep MY antennae up. And given that I live mere miles from this particular perceived sociopath, I think raised antennae are pretty darn wise.
I second what Lavonda said, and would like to add. Drew himself said about a month or two ago how disappointed he was in his fellow police officers. He talked about how they used to cover each other’s lives, and now none of them will even look at him. That is very telling to me - if he had an ounce of innocence, the cops at the very least would know, and treat him innocent until proven guilty.
The media vilifying him has nothing to do with the presumption of innocence. If the investigating agency reacts to pressure from the press coverage, shame on them, but the only the government is required to act like the guy is not guilty until proven in a court of law. Complaining about biased press coverage on any issue is a waste of oxygen.
Sri…I feel that Drewpy killed Kathleen Savio and Stacy Peterson…I also suspect that he HAD HELP!!!..sadly I can’t prove it…but I will wait in anticipation when AMERICA CAN!!!
This whole thing makes my skin crawl.
The press has it ’solved’. Yes, to quote that great criminologist Geraldo Rivera some time back “There. thats how it was done. All that remains is for the police to prove it.” Jeeze.
I’m betting that his former co-workers are sick of hearing thinly (and not so thinly) veiled hints that they have been covering for him. Not letting him go on a DUI, nay, the ‘blue wall of silence’ is covering up homocide! Give me a break.