All assumptions about his guilt aside, does anyone think it is ok/not okay to draft a bill specifically "to put (suspect) behind bars"? I guess it sounds a bit shady to me almost like, we can't convict him with the laws we have, so lets make new ones so we can. I understand there can be frustration among prosecuters, police, the public, family and others when someone, especially a person formally entrusted to enforce laws, is suspected of henious crimes but there is difficulty proving it. But after all, it is innocent until proven guilty in this nation (last I checked) and to create a new law like this seems to almost circumvent that in some aspects. Maybe I'm just jaded about Illinois polictics anyway. Most things they do seem pretty shady

JOLIET, Ill. — Six years after she mysteriously drowned in a bathtub, Kathleen Savio is finally getting her day in court.
Savio essentially will testify from the grave Tuesday, with witnesses expected to tell a judge in Illinois how Savio discussed and wrote about her fears that her husband, former Bolingbrook police Sgt. Drew Peterson, would kill her.
The hearing is expected to provide the first detailed look at evidence prosecutors contend ties Peterson to Savio's death. It stems from a state law that allows a judge to admit hearsay evidence -- testimony from witnesses who recount what they heard from others -- in first-degree murder cases if prosecutors can prove a defendant killed a witness to prevent him or her from testifying.
The Illinois Legislature passed the law after authorities named Peterson a suspect in the 2007 disappearance of his fourth wife, Stacy, then exhumed the body of Savio, his third wife, and reopened the investigation into her 2004 death. Though the bill's sponsors were careful never to link the law publicly to Peterson, it has been referred to as "Drew's Law," and his attorneys have long suggested it was passed to put Peterson behind bars.

full story at,2933,...est=latestnews