Is Drew Peterson Innocent Until Proven Guilty? I'm beginning to wonder...
Good questions, OWO. The press loves dirt and if they have a story like that, they'll run with it every time. I guess all we can hope, and Drew Peterson can hope, is that if he is charged with her murder, he'll get a fair and impartial jury who will consider only at the evidence presented, should it go to trial.
I would imagine, though, that most of the public who've been following the story probably think he had something to do with his wife's disappearance. I know that thought has definitely entered my mind. I guess the first time it did was when they announced they were exhuming the ex who drowned in the bathtub under suspicious circumstances. The first question I had was, if the circumstances were suspicious, why didn't they do everything they could to get to the bottom of it at the time? Why now? It'll be more difficult now to determine anything. Seems as though someone(s) could've dropped the ball on that case years ago, which is really sad.
"What you won't hear from this campaign or this party is the kind of politics that uses religion as a wedge, and patriotism as a bludgeon -- that sees our opponents not as competitors to challenge, but enemies to demonize." – Barack Obama, June 3, 2008
The stories about Drew Peterson’s missing wife, and all of its coverage makes one wonder whether people are in fact really considered ‘innocent until proven guilty’ as we so often hear and say. I think that when a prosecutor charges someone, most people instantly think that guilt attaches, which is not really fair, but this man Peterson has not even been charged. This man may or may not have done something to his wife, but should he, under our laws, be considered guilty already? He is being crucified in the press, and this crucifixion clearly runs contrary to the presumption of innocence concept. How can we as Americans do all this better?
“Fear not the soul of a poet, for it is yours to develop, to keep, and to use.” Words of OldWiseOne, 2007.