.::The Montana Standard::.

Untitled Document Please login to enter comment :

Member ID:
*Password:

Click here to register

Reader Comments:

seeuincourt wrote on Aug 11, 2008 9:07 AM:

" Butteexport so what you are saying is that the Petersen defenders will continue to blame everyone else for the crime of this coward up until the Judge rules on the other minor motions. That is a brilliant defense strategy and one that continues to paint this person as the heartless killer that he is. "

butteexport wrote on Aug 10, 2008 6:45 PM:

" My guess is they'll wait to hear what the judge says on the rest of the motions they presented at the hearing. It's not as wrapped up as seeuincourt would like everyone to think... "

it'sme wrote on Aug 10, 2008 7:37 AM:

" Macker, good point(who cares who Pam is)this is about Wade Peterson. I do wonder if now they will go for a change of venue and delay the trial once again. It seems like this will never end but maybe if they are granted the change of venue (if they seek one) then it will finally go to trial and be done.
PS Seeyouincourt, he knows his name and reputation are going to be drug through the mud, he's a cop and it happens to good cops everyday, for doing the job they are supposed to do.Just like it happens to a good lawyer, for doing the job he is supposed to do. "

seeuincourt wrote on Aug 9, 2008 1:42 PM:

" RW - what exactly are you implyng? The Petersen defenders have so far blamed, the CA for filing these bogus charges. They have blamed the BSBPD for botching the investigation and ran the good reputation of a good officer thru the mud. they even blamed the fire dept. for doing their job. I am positive that will blame the judge for this ruling.

The Petersen defenders have blamed everyone, and have expected everyone to accept responsibility for this crime... except Petersen.

Time to face the music Wade. " "

ROADWARRIOR wrote on Aug 9, 2008 10:02 AM:

" Score ONE for the "HEADHUNTERS" "

macker wrote on Aug 8, 2008 7:35 PM:

" Whos Pam? Who Cares? "

seeuincourt wrote on Aug 8, 2008 6:30 PM:

" Woops - now it is just the evidence and the Coward. Wonder how this will play out? "

it'sme wrote on Aug 6, 2008 6:55 PM:

" Well I have been accused by soccermom and seeyouincourt of being outtabutte, so I thought I should come on and set it right for the girls. I am Pam.
I think Wade Peterson should go to jail IF he is convicted of the crime he has been charged with for a long time, I am a firm beliver of an eye for an eye. I don't know the McCarthy or Peterson family but I think his family is off limits. As for peoples catty insults, they are supporting their son and that is a wonderful thing, they are standing by him right or wrong and he will need his family in the future regardless of the outcome of the trial.
I think Brad Belke should be off limits to your insults he is doing a job that he was hired to do.Like it or not he took an oath to serve his client in the best way possible. A hard job in the easiest of trials this one must be a nightmare.
I think Wade Peterson is entitled to a FAIR trial and an IMPARTIAL jury (I don't think that is possible in Butte) too many people are involved in the challenge and know to many details via gossip and rumors. I feel bad for the McCarthy family and can not imagine how they are feeling, my heart goes out to them. I do wonder where the beer came from that night but it will just have to come out in court just like everything else.
Hope you all have a peaceful night. Pam "

peace4all wrote on Aug 5, 2008 9:17 AM:

" My only response to this whole issue is that the parents of Peterson should not be involved in the discussion. They are not charged with any crime and their son is legally an adult. You raise your children and hope for the best. You should never take credit for their success or blame for their failures. This is the child's glory or shame not yours. It does not matter how great a parent YOU think you are they will and do do things they were taught not to do.Any parent who thinks MY CHILD WOULD NEVER DO THAT is living in La La land. Let us put the fault where it belongs and that is with Wade Peterson not his parents,friends or anyone else. But let us also be sure that he has a fair trial and all his rights are protected. There have been innocent people convicted before and will be again. Hopefully the system will work but in order to work all rights must be protected. If you are so certain of his guilt then why do you not think there will be enough evidence to convict him? Let the court coduct its business and you conduct yours. "

sft wrote on Aug 5, 2008 8:16 AM:

" "macker"... now that was "waxing poetic"... classic man. We all run low on forgiveness sometimes. God knows I'm no saint... If it was easy to forgive EVERYONE, ALL the time, Jesus would have just been remembered for turning water into wine... Wonder if there was anyone under 21 at that wedding... Oh god I hope nobody takes that joke too seriously! Seriously though, I hope the McCarthy family isn't carrying around hate. Terrible baggage that prevents healing. "

godblessedbuttemt wrote on Aug 5, 2008 7:48 AM:

" Woah! Tri-plex. You'd better stop and ask yourself if you REALLY want the answer to your question.
See how the few that responded to you were to say the least a little evasive?
MANY people know the answer, yet noone's talking about that one aspect of this terrible night.
The question of where did the alcohol come from seems to be the uranium-laced one.
People ask about it and are never heard from again.
Youe sease-and-desist is probably already in the mail.
Please stick to the discussion at hand and do not rock the boat.
(Actually, I made a similar post last week on the same subject, though profoundly less innocent and way more accusatory than yours. I received a nice PM from the editor with the smack-down on why it was rejected.) "

ROADWARRIOR wrote on Aug 5, 2008 7:19 AM:

" macker!!! Doggone it!!! You forgot to capitalize my name!!! Its "ROADWARRIOR"

CAPS LOCK BUDDY!!
WHOO HOO!!!! "

macker wrote on Aug 4, 2008 11:43 PM:

" No i didnt see your other posts correcting what you said. I did not mean to write you are not a good person. I meant to say a good person was not write such a thing. I have said before, name calling here is not necessary unless it is in jest (Such as I do with roadwarrior). Heck, you could be at the desk next to me and we could be pals for all I know.

We all need to remember that everyone here is posting an opinion as none of us has all the facts. Obviously I root for the police as I have stated before and John Burton is law enforcement and has used practical application of the law. Others here know what the books say and see things another way.

That is what makes this interesting. If we were saying these things to each others face, fights would start or, in reality, the comments would likely not be said at all.

This is a good place for us to vent and I think we do a pretty good job of being civil. Some better than others, but pretty civil.

I hope people keep the victims and their families in their prayers. I cannot say the same for the Peterson's but I dont wish them harm. I guess my lack of forgivness for Peterson is my being a bad Catholic.

Later. "

outtabutte wrote on Aug 4, 2008 8:30 PM:

" macker, sorry to hear you don't think I am a good person,(I wonder if it is just the "part of me" that thought what I did tht isn't a good person) If you will notice I did rephrase it, that if there is proof the evidence was tampered with that they will shut up, guess you may have missed that post. Last I remember, regardless of popular opinion, someone was still entitled to say what ever they thought.
I said I was sorry for posting it, other people have posted things that I don't agree with or think are nice, guess I am just not so judgmental as some of you.
I will say I agree with you that the family of the victim should be the one's who decide some of his fate, maybe they are better people than most of us and will forgive him, which will be the beginning of the healing process for them. "

John Burton wrote on Aug 4, 2008 7:43 PM:

" BTW outtabutte: It think the part some folks are having is your view that Mr. Petersen "isn't a hardened criminal," and that he simply made a mistake, albeit a terrible one.

My response to your line of thinking is this. What he did is no different than the individual who committs a robbery with a firearm, but does so with no intent to use said firearm. The commission of the robbery is a crime regardless of the "intent" of the person committing it to not harm anyone.

The same can be said of driving a vehicle when intoxicated. Driving under the influence is a crime---and everyone who possesses a driver's license knows it. The fact that Mr. Petersen didn't intend to harm or kill anyone doesn't obviate or lessen his responsibility for having done so.

I don't have any idea what the sentencing guidelines are for someone in Mr. Petersen's situation. I would imagine there will be many factors which will apply.

What seeuincourt appears to be saying is that he feels Mr. Petersen should serve the maximum amount of time (if convicted) for the crimes he is charged with.

If you disagree with the amount of prison time which Mr. Petersen is facing, then your disagreement is with the laws and the incarceration times associated with violating them---not with seeuincourt. "

John Burton wrote on Aug 4, 2008 7:25 PM:

" Outtabutte: I honestly don't know if Mr. Petersen can/would be able to get a fair trial in Butte. I guess it will depend on what his attornies think of how all of this has played out in the media.

I wouldn't be surprised at all if there is a change in venue.

Do I think the evidence will stand? Yes, I do. I don't think Judge Newman will suppress any of the evidence.

Based on what I have read, Officer Moore's actions were not only legal, but entirely "REASONABLE." "

outtabutte wrote on Aug 4, 2008 6:26 PM:

" Mr. Burton, do you think with all of the press and so on that Mr. Peterson can get a fair trial in Butte? You think the evidence will stand, and that the trial will go on. Do you think that there will be yet another hearing motion for a change of venue?
Just wondering what your professional opinion is. "

macker wrote on Aug 4, 2008 6:12 PM:

" You know, I rant and rave on here and sometimes wax poetic, but outtabutte you are not a good person. I could call you names but that is not right either. Just to hope evidence is suppressed so you can feel good about making your point to two other people is shameful. Aweful.

Ostin, probably a first and last for us, but I agree with your post about name calling. Not necessary.

Tri-Plex, by the way you wrote that sounds like you were once a 21 year old supplier. (Kidding) How true that statement is though about having one over age friend.

SFT, he should be punished as harshly as possible but I do understand that the past cannot change. Maybe they should let the McCarthy's decide what the punishment is. Eye for an Eye. But, you may also see a great deal of compassion. But then again, hatered is one heck of a fuel. "

outtabutte wrote on Aug 4, 2008 5:40 PM:

" Well Sir she posted it severl other times and it was removed as was all of the posts. I wish you could have read it.
She has stated that the state has set it at 60 years if he goes down for all of the charges, unless something has changed. I admit that I was wrong to post what I did.So as to why I did it, I have no excuse poor judgment.
As far as the cops NOT tampering with evidence, great but it would not come as a shock to me if they did.
So you are aware, I got an e-mail sent to me, a letter to the judge, a victims impact letter, and it had all of the very same information that seeyouincourt says on here.Plus a few other facts that for the life of me I don't know how the sender would know.
I know that I am not the only person to get it via e-mail or regular us mail for that matter. I personally did not read an affidavit in the paper and did not know one existed.The only information of charges I new of was in that letter.
I do think if Peterson is found guilty he should do some time not the max allowed, he is not a hardened criminal he is a young man who made some very poor choices that night.
We all make mistakes, and to insult Petersons family and his attorney's is wrong. His family is standing by him and his attorney is doing the job he is being paid to do. "

outtabutte wrote on Aug 4, 2008 4:36 PM:

" SFT I agree with your last post 110%. "

John Burton wrote on Aug 4, 2008 4:35 PM:

" outtabutte: I don't know you, seeuincourt or soccermom. After reading all the posts, however, I haven't seen any post submitted by seeuincourt that he wished for the Petersen family to lose their home or have their business (assuming they have a family business) destroyed.

It is quite apparent that seeuincourt believes Mr. Petersen should spend a fairly substantial amount of time in prison should he be convicted, but I don't see anywhere in his posts where he insists that he serve 60 years of a 60 year sentence. In fact, seeuincourt has stated that he feels Mr. Petersen should serve at least 15 years.

I don't know about you, but I think that is a far cry from your repeating that seeuincourt insists on Mr. Petersen serving 60 years in prison.

You also made the following statement: "Part of me hopes that the cops did illegally take evidence, part of me hopes that the evidence is supressed just so seeyouincourt and soccermom will shut up! If they are not speaking for the victims family maybe they should keep quiet for a bit, rather than continue to kick the hornets nest."

Why would you make such a statement?

The police didn't "tamper" with evidence, and Mr. Petersen's constitutional rights most certainly not violated. Furthermore, seeuincourt's statements on this blog are no more detrimental to the successful prosectution of this case than are mine or yours. It is ridiculous to think otherwise. The fact that the affidavit was published in the Montana Standard will have done more to influence---BY FAR--- the potential jury pool than the few readers who read and/or blog on this site.

Will we have to wait for the judge to make a decision on the defense counsel's motion regarding the legality of the circumstances under which Mr. Petersen was contacted and arrested? Yes, obviously.

I for one, however, am EXTREMELY CONFIDENT that Judge Newman will rule against the defense's motion to suppress the evidence, statements, etc.

I don't believe that Mr. Petersen intentionally set out to harm, let alone kill, anyone that night; however, his actions (as they have been detailed in the public affidavit) demonstrate an INCREDIBLE DISREGARD for the safety of others.

I think you need to think about that. "

sft wrote on Aug 4, 2008 3:59 PM:

" I've heard many youths are paying homeless people to buy them alcohol in exchange for alcohol and/or food for themselves.
All the namecalling here is interesting. Guaranteed way not to convince someone of a different point of view. Just galvanizes their stance against you.
I also don't agree with demonizing Mr.Peterson. He committed an evil ACT. He will be held responsible for his actions. However, I don't think anyone believes that he went out with an intention of killing someone. Been though this before, we have two options. 1) forgive him and let him serve his punishment as delivered by a fiar court, or 2) carry hate for him forever. Doesn't take much to know which is the right decision here. The past can't change, only from here out. One decision benefits all involved. The other eats us up.
The true test of our community will be if we can obtain justice here by the book. I can understand how it would be easy to get angry or overzealous and want to fight to "punish". Trust me, I personally am tempted here. However, if done at the expense of civil rights or the constitution: would it be worth it? I'd rather see justice done LEGALLY. No "tricks". That way there will be no mistrial, no overturned convictions, etc. We CAN have a safer community without sacrificing the rights that make the community worth living in in the first place. "

outtabutte wrote on Aug 4, 2008 3:36 PM:

" well well, are any of them who served the underaged man being held responsible in anyway for serving the beer at the party? "

butteexport wrote on Aug 4, 2008 2:57 PM:

" funny you should ask that Tri-pleX...in fact, the people at the party were not all underage... "

Tri-pleX wrote on Aug 4, 2008 2:19 PM:

" There are other ways for an underage person to become in possession of a cooler of beer besides buying and/or stealing it. A friend who is 21 is a very valuable thing to an underage person in Butte. Were all the members of the party that night underage? "

outtabutte wrote on Aug 4, 2008 2:03 PM:

" Seeyouincourt and Soccermom, you two are fine ones to talk, I am NOT Pam, for the love of god!(If either of you care to post your email I will email you a picture of my id card as proof)
I did not say he should get off scott free, where does it say that? Oh thats right it does not say that does it? If the evidence was obtained illegally yet the state has such a strong case it will not matter will it?If there is an "eye witness" then the evidence taken from the home will not matter will it?
Ostin you are right, I shold not have said it in that way, let me reword it, I do hope that if it is proven the evidence was tampered with that Soccermom and seeyouincourt will shut up. We will have to wait until the judge makes a determination in that matter.
As far as the other poster seeyouincourt will never ever admit she is wrong about anything, she has been right about everything from the beginning and always will be.Trying to discuss anything with her is a waste of time. She has insulted Belke the entire Peterson family wished their business to be destroyed, wished for them to lose their home and wished for their son to sit in prison for 60+ years.
Soccermom how do you know that the Petersons have not said to the McCarthy family that they are sorry, would that be public record? Is it possible that they did it and maybe you just don't know about it? "

npubem_noka wrote on Aug 4, 2008 1:27 PM:

" seeuincourt--There you go making unfounded assumptions again. I simply singled out of (of many) problematic arguments you've made and pointed out that if you are going to charge a person with a crime, you'd better be able to back up the specific charges you levy against them (and apparently I'm not the only one who thinks so, either, as the county attorney's office is struggling with this same problem as we speak). So, where's your evidence that Petersen bought (or now, stole) the beer? You're still just speculating and trying to pass it off as fact. "

seeuincourt wrote on Aug 4, 2008 1:06 PM:

" Npubem since you are down to arguing if he bought the beer, I can only conclude that you agree with ALL of the other crimes that he committed that evening.

You are correct, I do not know if he bought the beer, but can we conclude that he either had to buy the beer or steal the beer to bring it to the party. I gave him the benefit of the doubt that he is not a thief as well as a killer! "

ostinmontana wrote on Aug 4, 2008 12:49 PM:

" outtabutte: Your insults are out of place and inappropriate. It is one thing for you to disagree, but please keep your personal attacks of this forum. "

soccermom wrote on Aug 4, 2008 12:47 PM:

" outtabutte ( Pam) - how typical you are. Once beaten intellectually, you automatically resort to the insults and barbs. Why dont you go back to the kiddie pool where you belong and leave these discussions for the adults!

Let a killer go scott free just so you can prove a point. How childish are you and how low will you stoop?

I agree, a simple I am Sorry for what happened would have gone a long ways in the past 8 months. This could have been done without admitting any kind of guilt. That does go a long way to describe the morals of the family! "

outtabutte wrote on Aug 4, 2008 12:24 PM:

" Part of me hopes that the cops did illegally take evidence, part of me hopes that the evidence is supressed just so seeyouincourt and soccermom will shut up! If they are not speaking for the victims family maybe they should keep quiet for a bit, rather than continue to kick the hornets nest. If they had a brain between them they would realize they are helping the defense more than they are helping the prosecution. (By just about securing a change of venue motion which will drag this out even longer than it has been)
By the way seeyouincourt I did not say that you were the one who sent me the victim impact letter (you have no idea who I am, so how would you get my e-mail)? are you feeling guilty that it is out there? Trust me it is more out there than you can imagine. Infact I have it on pretty good authority that Belke has a copy of it too. "

npubem_noka wrote on Aug 4, 2008 12:07 PM:

" You can assume Petersen is lying about being in shock if you like. You can even opine as to what a person does and does not do while in shock (since, as we all know, your behavior is the measure against which all others shall be held accountable, and *you* would never do such things)...but as I pointed out before, that's ALL still just speculation on your part.

And I still don't see where in the official affidavit it states that Petersen BOUGHT the beer (which, among other things, is specifically what you accused him of below--see offense #2 if you need a refresher)... "

outtabutte wrote on Aug 4, 2008 12:05 PM:

" Stay on topic, seeyouincourt, you don't like what you hear so you have to attack and derail, typical. YOU'RE too emotionally attached to the crime, YOU'RE unable to see things for the way they might be because you don't want them to be that way. YOU'RE doing nothing but arguing here, and if some one does not see it YOUR way then they must be wrong. YOU'RE not worth anymore of my time! YOU'RE a waste of life.
npubem Good reply, but you're wasting your time, she is right and anyone who does not agree with her or see it her way is wrong or Pam or both. You're correct in saying this waste of life should get over herself, bud sadly we will continue to hear from her ugly mouth. When this trial is over she will find herself a new hobby/crime to complain about. It must just be so wonderful to be a perfect human and to have never ever made a mistake, and even if she does (like saying I am someone I am not) she would never admit it, yet she bashes Wade Peterson for doing it. There is a word for her, but the filters won't let me print it! "

ostinmontana wrote on Aug 4, 2008 12:02 PM:

" Seeuincourt: Just because Peterson showed up with a cooler of beer does not mean he bought the beer or that he distributed it to others, which is what you have accused him of. Where is your evidence for that? "

ostinmontana wrote on Aug 4, 2008 12:00 PM:

" Seeuincourt: You are neither the judge, jury, nor the executioner--as much as you appear to wish you were. Your opinions are based ONLY on the information the prosecutor has offered. You have NO information as to what the defense will present. Therefore, your arguments are completely one-sided.

It is fundamental that Mr. Peterson be afforded the fair trail our constitution demands, that is all that is being asked of the courts at this juncture. Sit back, relax, and let justice take its course. I understand that might be a long course, which is frustrating to you--but that long course is necessary to ensure that ideals of our founding fathers and our constitution are carried out appropriately. "

seeuincourt wrote on Aug 4, 2008 11:44 AM:

" npubem - Perhaps you need to read the affidavit a little closer. Like the paragraph that states that Petersen showed up to the party with a large cooler of beer.

Also the affidavit notes that the next morning and after coaching from Belke, PETERSEN said HE was in shock after the accident, but one could assume that he is lying since he lied about everything else. A person who is in shock does not immediately begin to lie about his actions. A person who is in shock does not go home and have a casual coherent conversation with his mom just after this crime as was testified. A person who is in shock does not begin calling his friends to concoct an alibi. Petersen was not in shock, you know it and I know it.

You are correct, we all handle remorse differently. How about a simple I AM SORRY! Or - I AM SORRY FOR THE SINS AND ACTIONS OF OUR SON! "

seeuincourt wrote on Aug 4, 2008 11:14 AM:

" outtabutte - the facts in the affidavit that was filed is hardly heresay and emotion based.

I have been open and honest with everything that I have ever stated, and I can honestly say that I have never recieved nor solicited a request for victim impact letters.

Pam - It is funny that you are still using your instead of you're because you weere corrected on it on the other site. If you are gooing to start lying here as well, try to be a bit more discrete! "

npubem_noka wrote on Aug 4, 2008 10:51 AM:

" seeuincourtThis was not a premeditated actdeciding to attend a party is not analogous to planning and executing a homicide. You can continue to claim that is the case, but youll also have to continue making unfounded assumptions and vast leaps of logic to do so. Any reasonable person can see there was absolutely no premeditation involved in McCarthys death.

Im also curious what version of the affidavit you must be referencing, because several tidbits of information you claim to have drawn from the affidavit dont seem to appear in the official version filed in this case (which is the affidavit of public record). For example, nowhere does the official affidavit mention that Petersen bought alcohol for the party that he attended--the affidavit doesnt mention the purchaser of the alcohol at all. If (as you claim by your enumerated list of offenses below) you are intent on punishing the person who bought the alcohol for the party, I suggest you start asking questions about what happened to the 21-year-old who did buy the alcohol for the party (unless, of course, youre simply intent on crucifying Petersen)...

In addition, I find no mention in the official affidavit of Petersens perceptions and feelings at the time of the accident. How do you know what he felt, what he saw or thought he saw on that poorly lit street, or what his state of mind was at the scene of the accident? According to the affidavit, Petersen was in shock and didnt know what he saw at the side of the road. The only person who can say with any certainty what Petersen was feeling and what he saw when the accident occurred is Petersen himself. Since I think we can safely assume you are not Wade Petersen, your opinion of Petersens perception of the events that night is just that--your opinion. Your assessment of Petersens feelings and state of mind (and subsequent assessment of his character) is nothing more than speculation; if youre going to claim otherwise, youre talking out of your a$$.

For those who are curious/interested in reading the complete official affidavit, the MT Standard published it here: http://www.mtstandard.com/articles/2007/11/16/butte/hjjciiidjihefe.txt

And as to your discussion of remorse, first, it is roundly discouraged for the victim (and/or victims family) to have any contact with any suspect(s) in an ongoing investigation/case. Thus, Petersen showing up on the McCarthys doorstep is out of the question. And second, my question remains: why should Petersen only show his remorse by sobbing and begging? Maybe thats how you show remorse for your actions, but I fail to see why your standards should be the only measure to apply in determining whether Mr. Petersen feels remorse for his role in the accident that night. And I still fail to see why the Petersen family should fee ANY remorse for their actions. Just because you personally disagree with their support of their son and their acceptance of the possibility that he is telling the truth about the accident doesnt mean they should automatically fall to their knees and beg forgiveness for offending you (or anyone else for that matter)get over yourself. "

outtabutte wrote on Aug 4, 2008 10:48 AM:

" soccermom, hey maybe ostin is Pam or even sjg is her, they don't agree with you either so must be that if someone does not agree with you they must be Pam. I will say this, even though I am not her, she is right you people are a bunch of idiots who can not look beyone your emotional attachment and friendship with this case to see what may be the real truth. "

outtabutte wrote on Aug 4, 2008 10:29 AM:

" No soccer mom I am not Pam, I am someone who inspite of your backrear thinking, truly thinks Mr Peterson should get a fair trial, and it is not going to happen in Butte MT! I guess anyone who disagrees with you and yours must be her,because she is the only person who does not agree with you right? WRONG!!! You and others have made up your mind without hearing any of the evidence you are making up your mind from hearsay and emotion nothing more.
Seeyouincourt, I did not see the affidavit in the paper therefore I did not read it. Maybe the standard can reprint it. I did however read the victim impact letter that was sent to the judge, I got it in an email, THAT may taint the jury pool, I got it, how many others did as well?
I do add to this discussion and I do have an opinion it just happens to different from yours. So it must be wrong. This is about supression of evidence not anything else, not guilt or innocence, not an affidavit, this story is about a hearing to supress evidence nothing more nothing less. IF the cops took ANY evidence illegally then they must supress that evidence, how much clearer does it have to be for you? If the evidence was illegally obtained then it is not admissable in court, there do you understand that?
Again, I think Mr Peterson, if he is found guilty, should do jail time but I do not think that he should do 60 some years. "

soccermom wrote on Aug 4, 2008 9:02 AM:

" seeuincourt - I agree with you 100%. Also - the person that you said outtabutte was is definately Pam. Nobody will talk to her on the other site, so she has to come and argue with somone on here.

outtabutte - for you to support the actions of Petersen that night is of great concern to me. How long will Butte have to tollerate alcohol related deaths before action is taken?

Also outtabutte, you did not answer the question. If Petersen was not drunk, how then do you defend his actions and a light prison sentence? "

seeuincourt wrote on Aug 4, 2008 8:46 AM:

" Outtabutte I am done responding to your pathetic and ignorant posts. All that you are doing here is fighting with me and my comments which are directly related to this topic. You add nothing to this discussion because you do not have an opinion one way or the other. You are here to fight with just for the sake of fighting.

Please outtabutte, do some research, read the affidavit that was PRINTED in this newspaper for ANYONE to read, draw an opinion that other reasonable persons may, then post if you feel the need. But arguing with me is really making you look foolish as you are way over your head!

Funny that you had nothing in rebuttal to support your friend or his actions. People like you, who support actions such as these scare me! "

digger4life wrote on Aug 4, 2008 7:48 AM:

" http://www.mtstandard.com/articles/2007/11/16/butte_top/20071116_butte_top.txt There is the link to what the mtstandard published concerning the affadavit. seeuincourt, I have not read the actual affadavit, so I do not know to what extent the above article varies. "

outtabutte wrote on Aug 4, 2008 6:12 AM:

" seeyouincourt, first of all, I am not friends with any of the people involved. I dont know the McCarthy family and I don't know the Peterson family, I only know that as a concerned citizen I expect him to get a fair trial!
I said maybe he was so drunk, that had he been sober he would have done things differently, dont jump to any conclusions.
How are you privy to the affidavit that was filed agains him? Do you always make a point of getting court documents, so you can run your mouth?
Nothing about what you type shocks me, your on a witch hunt! As far as tainting the jury pool, sure maybe a few "posters" here and on the Butte Rats are from out of town, (I have read your stats there as well) but you are still posting information that COULD sway a potential juror. Also the fact that Maria's challenge is pretty much known by everyone in Butte COULD be a reason for a change of venue. Also, don't forget the vicitm impact letter that was sent to the judge and to anyone else who wanted a copy,( I got one unsolicited via e-mail) was this your doing?
I have to ask, if you are picked for jury will you recuse yourself or will you lie in court(about being able to be open minded and hear the evidence etc) and stay seated, possibly causing a mistrial?
Don't forget the fact that as much as you run your mouth here, you do the same in public. I think maybe you need to build yourself a stand in front of the civic center and get a bullhorn so that you can tell more people than justyaking away (loudly) while your out having lunch and shopping.
Your opinion of how he has no redeemable qualities are just that your opinion, which as we all know is the only one that matters. In my opinion your on a one person witch hunt,and anything that you say should be taken as such.
You said yourself you are not friends with the McCarthy family and you don't speak for them that you are just a concerned citizen, who seems to be making a hobby out of this tragic accident. "

Astro wrote on Aug 4, 2008 3:24 AM:

" Everything that SEEUINCOURT has written is from the affidavit. Look it up. I'm not related to anyone involved but feel the same way after reading the affidavit.

This was NOT an accident. The incidents started with the underage drinking, drunk driving, failure to stop at the scene and include the attempts to cover-up the crime after the fact. (According to the affidavit)

Peterson didn't make one mistake. He made a bunch and keeps making them.

As far as regret or remorse, Wade seems to be regretful that he was arrested more than he is remorseful for the series of mistakes that lead to the injuries of the girls and death of Mariah McCarthy.

I bet he wishes he didn't go home more than wishing he didn't hit the girls. No accountability! That is why he will see decades in jail.

Wade is getting sympathy because many people drink and drive in Butte. We all possibly see that we could have killed someone based on our previous behavior and it scares us all. I get that. Look beyond that issue and look at all the opportunities Wade has had to do the right thing since the minute he hit the girls. He could have called for help, he could have stayed at the scene, he could have been honest with his family, friends and police about deer. He could shows that he is remorseful by being accountable for his actions.

Everyone should read the affidavit in it's entirety. It really shows a pattern of behavior that causes little sympathy for his actions.

This whole thing about trespassing is crap. Belke knows it, Peterson knows it and the judge knows it. It's just throwing things at the wall to see what sticks. "

seeuincourt wrote on Aug 3, 2008 7:12 PM:

" Outtabutte everything that I said happened that night was taken from the original affidavit that was filed against Petersen. Nothing that I wrote was based upon inside information and everything is accurate. You should try reading it; perhaps it would change your mind about your friend. By the way, did it shock you a bit to remember what this animal did that evening? If not, you are in need of serious help!

Osty - How exactly would this post provide justification for a change in venue? Of the 25 different persons that posted on this topic, at least 10 are from out of county, 2 are lawyers or wannabe lawyers. This leaves a total of 13 persons who post on here that may be from Butte and eligible for jury duty. The results in an amazing .03% of the population off BSB County that even reads these posts. We are hardly diminishing the jury pool are we ostin?

Outtabutte you keep saying that Petersen was so drunk that he could not accept responsibility for his actions, yet his own mommy maintains that he was not drunk; his own daddy maintains that he was not drunk, and Petersen himself maintains that he was not drunk. His mommy has testified that she could not smell ANY alcohol at all. So who is lying? Petersen or his mom? So what now Outtabutte how will you defend the actions of your friend now?

Also Outtabutte I did not come up with the 60 years that he is facing. Persons MUCH smarter than you have determined that killing another person, injuring 2 others, then running away from the homicide scene is worthy of 60 years in prison.

How can this stupid piece of crap possibly make a difference in anything that he does? As I mentioned, he has absolutely NO redeemable social qualities as far as I am concerned. "

outtabutte wrote on Aug 3, 2008 5:02 PM:

" My god see you in court you seem to know an awfullot of details about this accident and even more so for someone who is not "family" of the McCarthy's. or someone who does not speak for them. You have so much inside information and I do so wonder where oh where you got it from? Is your hubby one of the cops who was there that night? Are you one of the cops that was there that night? If so is he or you keeping things confidental? Are you the driver who did stop? Did you see and hear all of this first hand? Or are you just running your mouth like usual.
Ostin your right these kinds of post that seeyouincourt so happily puts here are doing nothing but giving Belke one more reason for ANOTHER delay to request a change of venue.
If indeed seeyouincourt that you are not family and are just an outraged citizen has it occured to you that your hurting the McCarthy family? You say your not speaking for them yet you have not shut up about what punishment YOU think Peterson should get. Have you asked them what they want as far as jail time goes for Mr Peterson or again are you just talking to hear yourself talk?
I have said before and I will say again having this guy spend 60 years in prison will not chane anything and all it will do is destroy another life, is that justice or is that just vengance. (which is what you seem to want)
If Mr Peterson had not been drunk he may not have left the accident but he may still have hit those girls. Had Mr Peterson been more mature he may have stayed and called for help. Had he been stronger he may not have been affraid and gone home but stayed and rendered aid, but he was and he didn't. We can not live in a coulda shoulda if I only did world. There are other people who are doing the same thing and it does no good for anyone. If only's do nothing.
He has to do some jail time I agree but 60 years (although not his entire life in prison) is a life time when your 20 years old going in. He can make a difference in the world he can learn from his mistake and he can teach others what not to do, he can change the world based on his future actions. He can if he is given a chance, make something good come out of this. "

John Burton wrote on Aug 3, 2008 4:49 PM:

" dewster: Marijuana has no side effects? It kills no one? Really? I take it you believe one can operate a motor vehicle as well stoned as one can sober?

And, dewster, marijuana doesn't cure cancer, or any other disease.

Please...stop posting nonsense and stoner drivel.

Move to Amsterdam and smoke all the dope you want. "

John Burton wrote on Aug 3, 2008 4:45 PM:

" I doubt very much that the "defense" ever intended on having a trial in Butte. "

ostinmontana wrote on Aug 3, 2008 10:44 AM:

" Seeuincourt: If you are so concerned about the defense's delays--as you clearly state multiple times in your last post, I truly wonder why you post so much here. Don't you know that the defense will use the high volume of posts on this chat to ensure a further delay in moving the trial to another jurisdiction? "

BUTTE GIRL wrote on Aug 3, 2008 8:49 AM:

" SEEUINCOURT...i COULD NOT AGREE WITH YOU MORE! "

John Burton wrote on Aug 2, 2008 10:48 PM:

" seeuincourt: That is a lot to digest. Don't know how much of what you say is true (you seem to have a great deal of insight as to Mr. Petersen's actions).

If what you have printed is true regarding his actions, he may very well end up getting the mid to high end of the sentencing guidelines if he ends up being convicted.

Not good---especially for Mariah's parents (as well as the parents of the injured girls, who undoubtedly will hear all of it come out during the course of a trial. "

dewster wrote on Aug 2, 2008 10:39 PM:

" Lets hear it for the Drunk Drivers that get away with murder! Maybe someday Belke will see his family destroyed by a drunk. He talks about rights? what of the rights of three innocent girls who never asked to be killed or maimed.. oops they are just kids, so Belke sets a good example for them, by trying to get the killer off.
Its ok to drive drunk and kill, but God forbid you smoke Marijuna huh? Marijuna is harmless,no one has died from it,no side affects,helps stop or cure certain cancers. And here is alcohol that kills up to 400,000 a year and they still allow drunks to kill. Montana passed the Medical Marijuna so that people may live and not suffer. What about the drunks? guess we all can get drunk and kill who we want, it's legal!! Might get a slap on the wrist...ouch! Next time one of those so called experts in Montana, blast smoking Marijuna and defend drunks, Better have the facts!
I am so tired of their lies,and false info,makes me sick. GET OFF THE BEER,and research before you lie to the public. Lets stop the killing, and get alcohol away from kids, and adults that "can drive drunk" And people are worried that Marijuana will harm are kids? No side affects or death,caused by smoking. YOU CHOOSE YOUR DEATH!

Anyone wanting the truth about Marijuana or effects of Alcohol email me i will not lie to you, the truth will set you free!! "

seeuincourt wrote on Aug 2, 2008 7:01 PM:

" Outtabutte Petersens defense team has asked for delay after delay. Why? So that gullible people such as yourself will forget the heinous crime that this was and begin talking like you that he deserves to be let off easy. Well let me refresh your memory as to why his defense team is fighting so hard to get this evidence thrown out.

First of all, this was not an accident!

It was not accidental that he and his other underage friends planned a binge drinking party and the act of he getting drunk was a deliberate action.

It was not an accident that in a drunken state, this killer decided that he was alright to drive himself home. Purposely driving under the influence was not an accident it was a conscious decision.

It was no accident when this coward plowed through 3 young girls, killing one and seriously injuring the other two with the weapon that he loaded during his drinking contest.

This crime was not an accident as the entire evening prior to the death of this young lady was premeditated, his actions were deliberate, and the consequences of his actions was homicide.

Just as her death was no accident, Wade Petersen is not a good person who made one stupid mistake. Mr. Petersen proved that he is a cold hearted individual through his actions that evening.

A good person does not purchase and provide alcohol for underage friends.

A good person, who is underage, does not binge drink himself drunk then drive under the influence of alcohol.

A good person does not strike 3 girls with his truck so hard that the impact leaves 3 individual notches on his truck hood.

A good person does not stop and gaze upon 3 injured girls that he just hit, and then drive away.

A good person does not return to gawk upon the injured girls who are moaning for help and again offer no aid.

A moral person does not lie about this crime when possible aid in another driver finally arrives.

A good person does not treat 3 injured girls as road kill and look upon them with fascination prior to leaving for a second time..

A decent person does not let 3 people suffer alone prior to help finally arriving.

A virtuous person does not immediately call friends to fabricate an alibi then lie to law enforcement, his friends and his parents about what he had done.

This coward is a cold hearted killer who as far as I am concerned committed not one crime, but at least 18 crimes in one evening.

1. Minor in Possession
2. Purchasing alcohol under the legal age.
3. Providing Alcohol to other minors.
4. Drinking under the legal age.
5. Driving under the influence
6. Hit and Run 3 counts
7. Failure to provide aid 3 counts
8. Homicide
9. Vehicular Assault 2 counts
10. Assault on a Minor 3 counts
11. Obstruction

Wade Petersens actions the entire evening could not possibly relate to the actions of any reasonably good, moral or virtuous person.

Now, to address your statement that Wade is hurting as well and how Wade and his family is devastated and full of remorse by this terrible tragedy.

How does one show remorse by cowardly running from the crime scene not once but twice?

How does one show sorrow by failing to provide aid to 3 girls that he just hit with a 4000 pound weapon?

How does one show remorse by lying to persons at the crime scene who could provide aid, by telling them that there is NOTHING here that needs help.

How do we know that this amazing young lady was dead on impact? How do we know that if a truly remorseful person provided immediate aid, she could have survived.

A truly contrite person would have called for help then held her hand and reassure her that she is alright.

A truly remorseful person would have remained at the crime scene sobbing and begging for forgiveness

A truly repentant person would have been at the doorstep of the McCarthy home at some time in the past 8 months to beg for forgiveness and to share with them Mariahs last moments.

Mr. Petersen, nor his family has shown no remorse in any of his actions that night and any night since and in fact are supporting his cowardace actions.

His deadly actions and lack of remorse dictate that leniency is not an option. He is charged with four felonies. Vehicular Homicide, which carries a 30 year sentence, 2 counts of Vehicular Assault which carries a total of 20 years, and Hit and Run - 10 years.

This person has earned 60 years for his actions, and I expect this murderer to receive a 60 year sentence. In addition, I would hope that this cold hearted individual will serve at least 15 consecutive years in prison for what he has done and what he failed to do.

You see, Leniency is reserved for those who took actions to correct or mitigate the damage of their crime. Wade Petersen did nothing to help 3 injured girls. He had a cell phone and chose not to use it, instead he left her to die alone within sight of her house.

He knew that he could have helped, he knew that he should have helped and he chose not to. Leniency is not an option for this barbarian!

outtabutte - You are correct in that it is not up to me to sentence this person who as far as I am concerned has no redeemable social qualities. But so help me, as long as his lawyers continue to delay the process, I will be here to remind people about how he callously let a young lady die while he drove home to talk to his mommy. "

BUTTE GIRL wrote on Aug 1, 2008 10:31 PM:

" outtabutte...I also have very respectful, wonderful children. I am in no way asking anyone to raise them. I am a full time mother. I never mis any activity my children are in. I am their example and I know they will learn from me. That is the ultimate reason for standing uo for what I believe in. I do not drink, if I did I would never drive! I do not think anyone is asking you to raise their child. However, as an adult being aware of a child drinking you have a moral if not legal obligation to take action. Would you feel differently if your children were younger? I do not think you should be bragging how wonderful a parent you are. I feel that I am also a wonderful parent not only to my children, but to any child that needs my guidence. It seems to me you are rather selfish. Your children are raisedand you don't want to be bothered with anyone elses, I get it. However, that gives you no right to slam anyone with concern about the safety of ALL of our youth. "

outtabutte wrote on Aug 1, 2008 4:39 PM:

" Sugarcookie, how about if you see an adult drinking, are you willing to take the keys and give them a ride home or let them sleep on your couch? It is not just about kids drinking, it is about not drinking and driving.
I hope your wrong that in 5 years or 55 years we will see another tragic event like this but sadly you are right we will. I have taken action, I don't drink at all and thus I don't drink and drive. I too accepted Mariahs challenge and I live it everyday. What are you doing to make a difference besides wear a t-shirt and wrist band? "

outtabutte wrote on Aug 1, 2008 4:34 PM:

" First of all seeyouincourt I am not Pam I am well aware of the little game you two play on the ratchats and I do not care to be connected to them thank you very much. (I think she comes on here and posts with the name it'sme also)
I am curious to know how you know so much about the lay out of the Petersons land.
I wish Wade Peterson did stop and help that night, but he did not and he will have to answer to a higher power than you or I for it at a later date.
I do not think that YOU should be so insulting to his family,they are standing by their son,and right or wrong they are his family and they love him.
I do not think that your association with Mariah's challenge (however small it is now) bodes well for the purpose behind it. Maybe next time your out for lunch or shopping you should look around and see who is listening to you before you start to run your mouth. Maybe you should keep your hateful comments and thoughts to yourself.
I do wonder who the hell you think you are.
It is up to a judge and jury to decide Wade Petersons guilt and time (if any) not you!
I don't think him sitting in prison for 60 years will do any good, it certainly will not bring that little girl back, and believe it or not it will not make her family feel any better about what happened to her.
You say I am here to argue everything, no, I have said all along, that I want him to get a fair trial nothing more nothing less. It's just that because I don't agree with everything you say I must be wrong because you are right.
By the way, I do not think Wade Peterson is a monster. I think he is a man who made a terrible mistake, who may have been so drunk that he made a decision that, had he been sober, he would not have made. A decision that ruined many lives that night including his own. Regardless of how the trial ends he has to look himself in the eye everyday for the rest of his life knowing what he did, as well as what he did not do. "

annd wrote on Aug 1, 2008 3:10 PM:

" There have been too many occurrences of drinking-driving-tragedies. It happens in every town -- a group of 2005 grads, groups or individuals (year after year) before and after -- I watched a movie called the Accident - the girl was 17--she got intoxicated at a party--she drove her and her friend - she made it, the friend didn't make it out of surgery - it's played out all across the country - there are no easy answers on these cases. You hope that the person gets consequences for the action/s, but you know they're suffering also (the girl professed to loving her friend, but as with undeveloped, immature minds, they don't necessarily tend to do the "right thing" or think of consequences. Seems to me nothing bad can come out of the challenge, and sure hope those that enter into the agreement are following through w/ "no" underage drinking, or no driving after drinking excessively "

John Burton wrote on Aug 1, 2008 2:30 PM:

" There are no other factors other than posting or gating, Ostin. Why? Because the only two factors which are to be applied in terms of Montana's trespass law are owner/agent consent or posting.

The property was not posted or gated; therefore, the owner can't claim that he had/has a reasonable expectation of privacy as there was/is nothing which would prevent a police officer---or any other individual---from entering the driveway.

This case is about as simple as it gets. "

John Burton wrote on Aug 1, 2008 2:25 PM:

" No Ostin. You are wrong. It will be reviewed from an "objectively reasonable standpoint." And, what Officer Moore did was most certainly legal, logical, and "objectively reasonable," i.e., would another officer given the same set of circumstances have acted in the same manner.

Officer Moore applied the law correctly, and his actions were "objectively reasonable." "

soccermom wrote on Aug 1, 2008 2:22 PM:

" ostin - why would I care what a para-legal has to say when Mr. Burton obviousley knows the law?

I am also concerned that legal documents for our District Courts are being prepared by such an opinionated person. I will need to look into this at greater depth. "

John Burton wrote on Aug 1, 2008 2:19 PM:

" The part that rankles me most about Osty's reply is this: He states that Mr. Petersen's attorneys, Mssrs. Belke and Jackson are not "stupid people" and "...are not making these arguments just because they can."

Those two statments are incredibly arrogant. First off, Osty (part time law student, sexual health counselor, and juvenile offender psychologist) is implying that DCA Joyce IS UNINTELLIGENT FOR STATING THAT THE DEFENSE ARGUMENTS ARE ILLOGICAL AND WITHOUT MERIT (THEY ARE). Secondly, Mssrs. Belke and Jackson are making the argument not because they can, but because THEY HAVE TO DO SO!

They have to attack the evidence, and Mr. Petersen's statements, because they have no choice but to do so. The evidence and Mr. Petersen's statements are damning to him and will result in his being convicted.

Your comments are disingenuous in as much as you consistently refer to "past instances" in which the BSPD has been alleged to have acted in a corrupt manner---and that past practice is indicative of future behavior.

You are not a practicing attorney, have never applied the law, conducted an investigation, nor made an arrest.

You are just a guy who gives his opinion, but has no experience whatsover to back it up.

You have an axe to grind, and are disingenuous to boot.

You're "

godblessedbuttemt wrote on Aug 1, 2008 2:19 PM:

" Can someone here who's in-the-know describe the driveway in question so we may understand? (If it can be done without comprimising the security and safety of the owners.)
Was where the truck was parked visable from the main road? If the driveway say is long and turns so that it wasn't than the officer had to be going out of his way to see the vehicle. I ask because what if the driveway was say to a ranch - a several mile long private way with turns and what not. Clearly in that case there would not have been probably cause for an officer to be making the trek down the drive, so where do we draw the line, 1/2 mile? 500ft? 50?
Also, many owners have decorative things on the side of their driveway to demarcate them. Logs, rock towers, archways, what not. I would think these things could be considered gateways. A gate does not have to be present or closed to be implied, does it?
I know these are out-there hypothetical instances, but my point is that there certainly ARE grey areas here. We only see the little pieces of the story that the article and comments give us. The judge is being given the whole picture and will make a decision taking ALL of it into account. "

ostinmontana wrote on Aug 1, 2008 2:00 PM:

" John: If the two factors you state are the ONLY factors the court looks at, you might have an argument. However, they look at more factors. They do not just look at MCA 45-6-201 and 203 (as you apparently did)--they look beyond that to their interpretation of what that statute stands for; there are many MORE factors than just posting and gating. That is precisely why this is not a black/white issue. "

ostinmontana wrote on Aug 1, 2008 1:57 PM:

" Soccormom: Thanks for pointing out my mistake in using Judge Kruger's name where I should have placed Judge Newman's name. I'm deeply sorry--I had Kruger on my mind because I am preparing documents for him.

However, that does not take anything away from the underlying arguments I made.

Since you typically discount anything I have to say, I wonder why you would even read my posts at all? "

soccermom wrote on Aug 1, 2008 1:56 PM:

" SFT - could it be possible that some people can socialize for hours at a time without getting drunk? MC is not about staying out of bars and abstaining. It is about being responsible. Perhaps there wa a designated driver with each of these groups.

In addition, you are incorrect in your assesment that change needs to happen only at bars to make a difference. Chankge is happening all over town, and if bar patrons are discussing it as they socialize, it is obviousley hitting home.

You people who choose to do nothing but crap on this organization really need to get a life. Perhaps you can save a life if you do! "

John Burton wrote on Aug 1, 2008 1:30 PM:

" Actually, the issue is as "black and white" as Macker, seeuincourt and I make it.

The property in question was not posted, nor was it gated. As such, the court will most definitely rule that Officer Moore's actions were most definitely "OBJECTIVELY REASONABLE" AND THAT MR. PETERSEN DID NOT HAVE AN OBJECTIVELY REASONABLE EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY. "

sft wrote on Aug 1, 2008 1:28 PM:

" Last weekend I personally saw a group of people proudly talking about the challenge in a local bar for hours while drinking... end of the night they as well as 20-30 other people that had been drinking all night all got in cars and drove home... with a group of butte cops standing by the door having just broken up a fight. They just watched everyone get in cars and leave. I think that the purpose of the challenge was a good one. I also don't doubt that there are a large amount of people in the comunity that practice it. But the only place that any visible change will matter is at the bars. I've seen ZERO change in that environment. So far, as far as anyone needs to look to see the hypocracy is go to ANY butte bar ANY night when it closes. Story's always the same. That's why I'm sceptical about those who profess comittment to the challenge. It's easy to talk, or chat in here and support it but few of those who were drinking and driving before have stopped. Maybe a few, but not enough to notice. Not looking for people to slam me here. Some posters here just like to name call. Just pointing something out for discussion. "

soccermom wrote on Aug 1, 2008 1:25 PM:

" ostin - if you are going ot write a long drawn out response that you expect the rest of us to read, please do some research.

As soon as I saw that you had the wrong Judge, i concluded that your whole argument is full of errors and did not read.

AS Mr. Burton stated, strick with your day job! "

sugarcookie1 wrote on Aug 1, 2008 1:18 PM:

" outtabutte - it is your thinking and your mentality that will promise that in 5 years we will be discussing the homicide trial of another individual. Persons like you love to point out all that is wrong yet refuse to take any action.

I love Mariah's Challenge and i accept it. If I ever see teens drinking, you can bet that I will take action. "

outtabutte wrote on Aug 1, 2008 1:03 PM:

" Seeyouincourt, it is your, I am right and the rest of you, if you don't agree with me are idiots, morons, and heartless, attitude and comments (saying the same) that you, a person involved in the challenge, make that are giving the challenge a black eye.
You have posted such comments you have stated such comments and you in doing so, have turned many people off of the challenge.
Maybe you lost sight about what the challenge is about when you decided to focus more on the prison sentence Wade Peterson gets.
I know I'm and idiot and I don't know what I am talking about, but maybe you need to take a look at your public attitude and how it is adversly affecting your cause. "

ostinmontana wrote on Aug 1, 2008 12:50 PM:

" The issue of whether Mr. Peterson has a reasonable expectation of privacy in his driveway is not as black and white as many writers on this forum have stated. Mr. Belke and Mr. Jackson are not stupid people--they are not making these arguments just because they can--they are making the arguments because they have a chance at winning with them. Admittedly, Judge Kruger will most likely not rule to supress the evidence--after all, this is an election year. However, this issue will be much more likely to be successful in subsequent appeals courts.

Macker: You cite Supreme Court cases to back up your belief that Peterson does not have a reasonable expectation in his driveway. Although you are correct that the US Supreme Court has decided that a person does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in their driveway, their decision is not dispositive on the issue. States are free to enact higher levels of rights for their citizens and Montana has done so in regard to citizen's driveways. To illustrate how states can enact further rights for its citizens outside the scope of the Supreme Court decisions, consider the US Supreme Court decision that citizens DO NOT have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the garbage they put out on the street. However, several states DO give their citizens a reasonable expectation of privacy in their garbage (e.g., New Hampshire, Hawaii, California, New Jersey, Vermont).

Montana does afford its citizens a reasonable expectation in their private driveway in certain circumstances. According to Montana Supreme Court caselaw: "To determine whether there has been an unlawful search pursuant to Montana's constitution, we look to two factors: (1) whether the person has an actual expectation of privacy that society is willing to recognize as objectively reasonable; and (2) the nature of the state's intrusion."

When you have a factors test, as in this case, it simply cannot be as black and white as previous posters on this forum proclaim. The many factors that the court must examine include: whether the driveway was posted with
"No trespassing" signs, whether there was a fence on the property, whether the property was gated, what time of day the intrustion happened (broad daylight vs. dark night), whether natural obstructions provided barriers (trees, bushes, etc.), whether the house was on a busy highway or a smaller road, whether the driveway completely faced the street or turned inward out of public view, where the house was situated, the length of the driveway, and several other factors.

The quesiton is whether Mr. Peterson had a reasonable expecation of privacy at the end of his driveway. The question IS NOT black and white as Burton, Macker, and seeuincourt believe. Some factors work in Mr. Peterson's favor, while other factors do not. It is up to the courts to decide this gray issue.

I will again state that I hope the evidence is admissible--I hope the evidence is not suprressed and I hope that he then goes on to trial. However, if the evidence is found to be gathered unconstituionally (which remains a possibility in this gray, unsettled area of law)--then Mr. Peterson is COMPLETELY ENTITLED to have his rights enforced and all of the subsequent evidence against him suppressed. "

seeuincourt wrote on Aug 1, 2008 12:42 PM:

" Ouottabutte Pam sorry to disappoint, but I am NOT one of the main people with the Challenge, and I am not a family member and I do not speak for them so my words dont carry much weight with you.

As I mentioned to your friend, I do strongly desire Mr. Petersen to spend a great deal of time in prison for allowing a young lady to die when she possibly could have been saved. I also do strongly support the work that everyone is doing with Mariahs Challenge. But I fail to see how support for one, blackens the eye of the other.

What I AM is an irate citizen who desires to see this individual punished for his crime.

Outtabutte how can you defend the actions of this animal? He got out of his truck, looked a three girls, heard them moaning in pain, then left them to die. Why arent you as irate as I am?

I do not want to see him rot in prison for the rest of his life, just for the amount of time that he is owed!

Who is being the BULLY now Outtabutte? This lady provideed you some suggestions as to how we as a community can help prevent underage drinking and you kicked her for it. You really arent here to discuss this topic, your main goal is just to pick a fight with anyone who will listen to your dribble. "

outtabutte wrote on Aug 1, 2008 12:33 PM:

" I suggest calling the police, if the kids are out drinking the parents probably don't care and would not do much anyway. What is contacting the school going to do? If someone has a problem with a kid they can call the school and lie about seeing them drinking.
I will say it again and agian, parenting is up to 2 people, the 2 people who chose to have children. It is not up to me to raise someone elses kids. I raised mine and they turned out wonderful because they had parents who put them first, before work, before things, before anything else. Maybe other parents should try it sometime, maybe it will work for them. "

seeuincourt wrote on Aug 1, 2008 12:22 PM:

" SJG what comments did I make about Belke that makes me an idiot?

Also why would you confuse my desire to see justice served with my support and how that reflects on Mariahs Challenge? These two issues are COMPLETELY unrelated.

I do strongly desire Mr. Petersen to spend a great deal of time in prison for allowing a young lady to die when she possibly could have been saved. I also do strongly support the work that everyone is doing with Mariahs Challenge. But I fail to see how support for one, blackens the eye of the other.

But I guess I have to consider the source. Your thought process laid blame of this crime onto the parents of the young ladies so I guess we can see how reasonable of a thinker you are. "

BUTTE GIRL wrote on Aug 1, 2008 12:17 PM:

" I am not saying to rip the shirt off of these kids, that was not my point at all. I was simply stating that one should do whatever it takes to stop them from drinking. How, you ask? Contact their parents,police, school. That is if you know the kids names,if not, then you are being sucked into a rumor. As an adult you are obligated to report this.

As for my children, they are influenced at home!. I was simply stating that children are very aware of the actions of the adults around them, therefor I am glad these negatative people are not around my children.

Also, Wades parent could certainly make him admit he was in the wrong. They could do this by taking away all of this money they are giving him. It seems to me Mr. Peterson seems to be pointing fingers at whomever he can. They are allowing him to act like a chid and hide behind their money. He needs to stand up be a man and admit his actions destroyed many lives that night. He did this to himself, he now needs to stand up and take the punishment. "

outtabutte wrote on Aug 1, 2008 12:09 PM:

" See you in court YOU are one of the main people giving the challenge, which you say you hold so dear, a black eye, you argue with and insult anyone who does not agree with everything that you say, and follows everything that you do.
I am not an expert on Montana trespass laws, but I would think that if it is ok to trespass someplace unless a no trespass sign is posted, (which is what I thought Mr Burton was saying) then there should be a law against it.
SJG you hit the nail on the head, but I personally hate to see you go, you are one of the few posters here who has comments that are helpful and not insulting to others.
See you in court could take a lesson from you.She/he could also learn a thing or two from you about things, but he/she is too wrapped up in being right and not as concerned about learning.They are only concerned with vengance, and seeing Mr Peterson rot in jail for the rest of his life, anything short of that will be unjust in their eyes. My comment about speaking in schools with Mr McCarthy, was after he served jail time, and could have been a healing process for the McCarthy family. I wonder if see you in court is a family member if not then for him/her to speak for the family does not carry to much weight with me. "

John Burton wrote on Aug 1, 2008 11:28 AM:

" sjg: I fail to see where the police were overzealous. "

John Burton wrote on Aug 1, 2008 11:08 AM:

" man-e-ac: I DID NOT say that one can not be arrested for trespassing. I said one can not be arrested for trespassing if the property trod upon is not specifically posted as "no trespassing."

All one need do is research Montana trespass law; it is as simple as that.

Montanas trespass law states that a member of the public has the privilege to enter private land only:
With explicit permission of the landowner or his agent, or
When the landowner has failed to post a no-trespassing notice.

As I said in a previous post, I have no idea what the property in question looks like, or whether or not is is posted as "no trespassing."

In one of his previous posts, however, seeuincourt stated that the property was neither posted nor gated. As such, the owner has no expectation of privacy as ANYONE could conceivably enter onto said property, such as a police officer looking at a car parked in/on a driveway---who then knocks on the residence's front door in order to make contact with the occupants of said residence.

According to seeuincourt, Mr. Petersen's father (who in all likelyhood was/is the registered owner of the vehicle) then gave his consent to Officer Moore to search said vehicle.

Mr. Petersen's attorney, Mr. Belke, has no choice but to attack the circumstances under which all of this took place as it would appear that the evidence collected is damning.

Mr. Belke is providing his client with a defense. It is his job to do so.

If what seeuincourt says is true, however, it will be an exercise in futility. "

sjg wrote on Aug 1, 2008 11:04 AM:

" seeuincourt: agreed this issue is not about privacy and tresspass, but because of the zealousness of the butte police it may turn on it. Your comments about Belke only goes to prove what an IDIOT YOU ARE. Are you so full of vengence that anyone who disagrees with you or who is a part of the process is less of a person than YOU!!! You are a fine one to slander others with your name calling any time they share an opinion that isn't the same as yours. You are a sad proponent/representative of what good might come out of this or the challenge. It is people like you who give the whole thing a black eye. as for this site, I am done with it. whoever is monitoring and censuring should put a gag on see you in court as they do not help the cause of the McCarthy's or the challenge. These are the kinds of vengeful comments that cause decent caring people to walk away. "

macker wrote on Aug 1, 2008 10:06 AM:

" Officers may search a vehicle without a warrant if, (1) there is probable cause to believe that contraband or other evidence of a crime is presently inside it, and (2) it is located in a public place or private driveway that is readily accessible from the street. In the words of the United States Supreme Court, If a car is readily mobile and probable cause exists to believe it contains contraband, the Fourth Amendment thus permits police to search the vehicle without more. A probable cause search is permitted regardless of whether there are exigent circumstances that make it impractical to obtain a warrant, and regardless of whether officers could have easily secured the vehicle while they sought a warrant. In addition, unlike searches incident to arrest, probable cause searches need not be contemporaneous with the arrest of the occupants.

THis is from a legal decision by the US Supreme Court. As I have said elsewhere, because the vehicle was used in the crime, Ofc. Moore had all the right to look at the vehicle and make contact with the occupants of the house. "

seeuincourt wrote on Aug 1, 2008 9:42 AM:

" Outtabutte I need to agree with Buttewhat86 you are dumber than a box or rocks! The discussion on this topic surrounds the legal description of Private Property and how that relates to the 4th Amendment regarding illegal search and seizures. This is not a criminal trespass issue you idiot. And thanking man-e-ac for expressing your thoughts more clearly only brings him into your lair of stupidity!

Outtabutte I will tell you how to stop a minor from drinking. Grab the first cop you see and point out those who are abusing the law. But again, you weasel out of your argument by saying, WElllll maybe I did not see youths drinking while wearing a MC t-shirt, perhaps I only heard it from other idiots who wish to remain anonymous.

One last thing outtabutte Old Man Petersen could influence his coward of a son to step up and be a man by cutting off the funding for Belkes retirement fund. By accepting responsibility for his crimes that evening he would save the family farm and the victims family the heartache of a trial and reliving the evening that Wade cared more about himself than the 3 young ladies that he just plowed thru.

Butte Girl I cannot agree with you more. Mariahs Challenge is a God send to the youth of Butte and it is clearly having a positive impact. Of course you will ALWAYS have the jerks who wish to crap on any organization just for the sake of argument.

SFT there is a difference between supporting a very worthy organization and wanting to see justice served. The two issues are completely unrelated. Please have the mentality to recognize the difference and dont condemn Mariahs Challenge and the good that it is bringing to our community. "

sft wrote on Aug 1, 2008 9:24 AM:

" Since when does "being a man" mean you should wave your rights? Too many challenge fanatics on their high and mighty witch hunt in my opinion. I think he did it. I think that a FAIR trial will prove it so and a court will punish him accordingly. I'm not pretending to know as much about the law as others here. I'm confortable that the judge and lawers know what they're doing better than any of us. They don't need our help! I would be severly disappointed if Mr. Peterson gets off... but no where as disappointed as if he gets 50 years from an unfair trial pushed by a biast community more focused on making him pay than our justice system! "

outtabutte wrote on Aug 1, 2008 7:13 AM:

" Butte Girl, It is not the challenge that is a bad thing, it is SOME of the people involved who are putting a black eye on it. ( negative comments and actions of some of the "members" do reflect on the challenge).
Wade Peterson's parents can not MAKE him do anything, he is a 21year old man he and only he can chose to plead guilty and stop the trial. However, if there was a violation of his rights and illegal taking of evidence (which is what the hearing is about) then he is smart to ride it out and wait and see what happens. Is that the right thing to do? Is it a smart thing to do? YES!
How would you suggest that someone STOP kids from drinking while wearing a t-shirt and bracelet, go up to them and rip the shirt off their back? Maybe this person has not seen it, maybe she has heard about it happening.
Wearing a t-shirt does not make someone do the right thing. Do you know how many people have been arrested while wearing DARE t-shirts? Several, from all over the country, it kind of became the but of many a joke. Loser Boy is being hauled off to jail for drugs and what shirt is he wearing? A DARE t-shirt, its ironic. At one point there was a web site of people arrested (for drinking and drugs) while wearing a DARE shirt. I don't know if it exists anymore.
I would hope that the only thoughts and comments influencing your young children would be your own. Doing the right thing should be taught in the home by the parents. "

BUTTE GIRL wrote on Jul 31, 2008 10:07 PM:

" What kind of person thinks Mariah's Challenge is a bad thing? Thank the lord above you and your negative thoughts are not influencing my young children.

If there are kids drinking whie wearing there shirts and braceets,you should be stopping it. Afterall, you are aware of it. I know the vast majority are taking this challenge seriously. If this challenge saves only one child, it is then a success.

I could care less what the Petersons are at risk of losing. They are going to lose these things because they will not make their son stand up and be a man. It seems to me all of these things can be replaced. Mariah is gone forever. I would much rather have my daughter than my house and business. "

outtabutte wrote on Jul 31, 2008 8:35 PM:

" Buttewhat86 please I don't need god to have mercy on my soul, he has far more important things to to and souls to save. Why is it that when someone does not agree with a post thay can not just say as much, why is it that people have to start tossing out personal insults?
That being said man-e-ac, thank you that is what I was trying to say. Apparently not clearly, but that was the point of my post. "

man-e-ac wrote on Jul 31, 2008 6:31 PM:

" Mr. Burton- You are trying to tell me that a person can not be arrested for trespassing on someones property. If that is true then why exactly are there sections of "on the books" in the paper regarding the arrest of people who were trespassing, also why are there court proceedings regarding trespass that render fines and possible jail time. "

buttewhat86 wrote on Jul 31, 2008 5:26 PM:

" Outtabutte:
Everyone in this room is now dumber for having to read your posts. Nowhere in your rambling nonsence have you even come close to what can be considered a complete thought.
I award you no points, and may god have mercy on your poor soul. "

outtabutte wrote on Jul 31, 2008 5:08 PM:

" Is your own property not considered private unless it is posted as such? If someone unwanted comes onto your property there is no law on the books to charge that person with trespassing? That is just crazy if such a law does not exist in Silver Bow County or by city ordinance. If that is true that no law does exist I suggest someone get it on the books. "

macker wrote on Jul 31, 2008 3:53 PM:

" Basically everything I have been trying to write (while working) for the last couple of days was just laied out by Mr Burton.

So, from here on out, I defer to him. Expically since he is correct. "

John Burton wrote on Jul 31, 2008 3:28 PM:

" I clearly don't have the faintest idea about where Mr. Petersen lives, or the description of the property. It would appear, however, that "seeuincourt" does. He confirmed everything I have posted.

Osty, you need to grow up. You clearly---clearly---don't have the faintest idea about how investigations can & can't proceed. It is VERY OBVIOUS YOU DON'T. It is even more clear to me that you don't understand how to apply the law. It makes sense because you have never done so.

Halt the proceedings? :) Please, my friend, you do an injustice to yourself by making comments such as those. You know very well that Mr. Petersen's attorney is taking the line of attack he is because he has no choice. He (Mr. Belke) knows very well that the evidence damns his client; therefore, he has no choice but to try and suppress it.

It's all part of the game.

Nice try, though. "

John Burton wrote on Jul 31, 2008 3:22 PM:

" Man-e-ac: Go back under whatever militia styled rock you crawled out from under. You clearly don't know diddly about squat.

You probably think the I.R.S. is illegal and one isn't required to pay taxes either. "

John Burton wrote on Jul 31, 2008 3:17 PM:

" Man-e-ac: You, my friend, are about as ignorant as they come. One cannot be arrested for trespassing if one's property isn't posted as "no trespassing."

Ostin: Mr. Petersen's attorney has no choice but to make the argument. He won't win. It would appear that "seeuincourt" has just validated what I said. The Petersen land (apparently) is not posted: it is not gated (as such, there would be nothing to prevent a police officer or any other person from entering onto it; therefore, there would be no expectation of privacy). And, Officer Moore would not have needed a warrant to knock on the door. His doing so is nothing more than the conduction of a "consensual encounter."

Furthermore, Mr. Petersen's father (apparently the registered owner of the vehicle) gave "written consent" for Officer Moore to search it! As such, there is no violation of his son's 4th or 13th amendment rights.

There are three (3) keys to the castle: consent, exigency, and the obtaining of a warrant. It sure appears to me that Officer Moore did EXACTLY what he was legally allowed to do.

Go back to your night law classes, Osty. Sounds like you need to brush up a little bit. "

holy wrote on Jul 31, 2008 3:14 PM:

" Spokaneman...I'm not saying that it is not a wonderful cause and most of the people involved in the challenge are trying to get the word out, however some in this town are using this to benefit their own believes and hiding behind the challenge.

As I said before kids are wearing the bracelets and tee's but then are drinking thinking that if they are not driving that it is ok...kids twist things how they want...but many adults are thinking that also...OK my kid isn't driving so it is ok....I don't think that is the challenge.

I don't mean to be stupid but PM? Not sure what that means....not good on the computer lingo.... "

macker wrote on Jul 31, 2008 3:02 PM:

" Alright, lets go. Burton is correct in what he writes.

seeuincourt I know nothing of where Peterson lives so that is why I have posted as I have. But thanks for the info.

At least Ostin has some knowledge. Most of it not right but some none the less. Man-e-ac, you have no ideaer. I love how you two read the definition of exigent and think it only applies with in an instant. You are not correct but I guess no matter what I say you two will continue to "define" what you think it means. Trust me, I know the law and how it applies. Please, continue to ramble as it amuses me. And again, attacking Mr Burton is comical. You know nothing of trespass. There is a difference between coming in my house as private property and coming onto my driveway, where any car can drive onto.

Now, lets all stop the name calling. Awaiting your response with.....boredom. "

seeuincourt wrote on Jul 31, 2008 2:33 PM:

" All of you are arguing a moot point. The Petersen property is NOT private land. It is not posted, it is not gated, it is used for normal deliveries and the land is leased out to other non private persons. There is nothing here that would qualify Petersens insistence that the land was considered private.

Was Petersen considered a flight risk? ABSOLUTLY - he demonstrated this when he fled the scene of his HOMICIDE.

Officer Moore did not need a warrant to knock on the door. After that, OLD man Petersen gave him written permission to search the vehicle.

This is Belke's one shot at getting his client off, and it has no chance of success. "

man-e-ac wrote on Jul 31, 2008 2:17 PM:

" Mr. Burton- The fact that you believe that the fact that Mr. Petersen's truck was found by an act of trespass makes you the imbecile, not Ostin. It does not matter if you wear a badge on your chest or not, you still are not entitled to trespass onto someones property. If you were to go onto a persons private property you can be arrested and have charges pressed against you. The rules do not change because you hve a badge on your shirt. Also the evidence was found based on a hunch that he had gone there. If you could go onto private property and make an arrest without a warrant then the person who beat up and killed Mr. Robert Barry outside a bar in uptown Butte would be behind bars instead of sitting at home right now. "

ostinmontana wrote on Jul 31, 2008 2:17 PM:

" Macker: The court will decide whether the vehicle was in public view, as you suggest, or whether it was in a private place, as the defense argues.

What "exigent circumstances" are you arguing for here and WHY? The County Attorney is not arguing exigent circumstances--so why are you? "

npubem_noka wrote on Jul 31, 2008 2:13 PM:

" is the Petersens' driveway visible from the public road? I was under the impression that, from the public road, a building blocks the view of where the vehicles are parked. "

ostinmontana wrote on Jul 31, 2008 2:12 PM:

" Mr. Burton: Thank you. You've taught me so much. I'm glad you have all the answers. You should contact the Butte District Court and tell them to halt the hearings--as there is no underlying argument, according to YOU, that would support the current hearings. "

Ellie-Iris wrote on Jul 31, 2008 2:08 PM:

" Wow it's getting crazy in these comments. Ok I thought I would defend what I said early people deserve second chances. Now Butte has had two deaths because of someone drinking alcohol. Mariah's and Mike Halverson. Yeah I know Mike's death was caused by being beaten at the Christmas party in December of 2006. A family member of mine was there and he was charged with criminal endangerment and he didn't even do anything wrong. My family and I believed him when he said he didn't hit the guy. Josh Allen got 5 years but he was suppose to get 10. The other people have to talk to the schools about the dangers of alcohol. Martin got bootcamp and probation for 3 years. I feel like the police weren't doing their job right and arresting two people were involved in the death of Mike. I still feel that way and I am angry about it sometimes. Who knows if there really is suppression of evidence? I think there is but that is just my opinion. I'm sure everyone who comments remembers the Christmas Morning death. Did you think all five of the people charged got what they deserved or should they have gotten harsher punishments? And it's like I said before if this is Wade's first offense he shouldn't get 30-50 years in prison. To me I think Wade should be charged with manslaughter. Maybe Wade went to his parents house that night because he didn' want to go back to Helena or he was going to stay the night with his parents. I was at the Folk Festival when it was in town and it was about 12 or close to 1:00 and I saw that there was beer being served. I mean I wish they would ban those it's not going to help this town. I don't even think we need Evel Knievel days anymore while it is fun yes, it causes a lot of problems for the police and residents of Butte. That's all I'm going to say for now. "

spokaneman wrote on Jul 31, 2008 2:05 PM:

" holy - you may be correct in that those close to Mariah's Challenge may not see all that is going on. Perhaps you would like to join in the cause and lend you support and opinions. Those who do donate much of their free time to this cause do find the Challenge to be rewarding and are seeing evidence that it is having an impact. PM me and i will tell you how you to can donate your time to help with this most important cause. "

man-e-ac wrote on Jul 31, 2008 2:03 PM:

" macker-- The argument of exigent circumstance only applies in the interest of time. It deals with the idea that a persn can only get so far in a certain amount of time. Does anyone know how long it took the officer to arrive at the scene? It took over 5 minutes. The argument that Mr. Petersen can not get farther than Blacktail Loop in that 5 minutes is rediculous. He could have made it to Continental Drive and gone to the highway, gone North into town, or South into the country. He could have gone almost anywhere in the 5 minutes or more that it took for the officer to arrive at the scene. So the argument of exigent circumstance can not apply here. Next time you bring up circumstantial ideas make sure that you fully understand the laws behind them. "

John Burton wrote on Jul 31, 2008 1:53 PM:

" Ostin: You don't know anything, as is ususal. How Ofc. Moore ended up locating the pickup truck is completely irrelevant. You are an imbecile, my friend. Montana law has nothing whatsover to do with Ofc. Moore's having contacted Mr. Petersen. All the officer---any officer---had to do was look for a vehicle matching the description of the vehicle seen leaving the scene of the accident. All he then had to do was knock on the front door, i.e., a consensual encounter.

You are nothing more than a kid who takes law classes part time. You're not an attorney, and you don't have the faintest idea about how an investigation can and can't proceed.

As is your usual, Osty, you think you know more than everyone else. You don't, and it's quite obvious you don't.

Unless the "driveway was "gated" then there is no reasonable expectataion of privacy. Since it was apparently parked in a "non-gated" driveway visible from a public right of way (public street or sidewalk), then the officer had every right to walk up the driveway and look at the car. He wouldn't have a right to impound it or search it.

After confirming that the vehicle matched the description of the vehicle involved in the accident/incident, the officer has every right to contact the resident(s) in the house in order to attempt to speak with them. This is called a "consensual encounter" and is all part of a continuing investigation.

After contacting the resident(s), it sounds very much like Mr. Petersen made statements which led Ofc. Moore to believe that he (Mr. Petersen) was the driver of the vehicle at the time of the accident. As such, Ofc. Moore then had "probable cause" to arrest him. It's simple.

Since you, however, have never conducted an investgation, let alone made an arrest, you wouldn't have the faintest idea about how to actually do either.

I, however, have conducted hundreds and hundreds of investigatons and made hundreds of arrests in 19 years. In that time, I have managed not to be sued for violating a single person's civil rights.

What a co-inky-dink. It would seem that you---a part time law student & full time sexual health counselor---seem to know more than anyone...yet again.

Please, Osty, lets try to stick with what you know best: the dispensation of dysfunctional advice as it pertains to "swinging."

You clearly don't know thing one about conducting a criminal investigation. "

macker wrote on Jul 31, 2008 1:48 PM:

" Gee, I dont remember writing Hot Pursuit. I even read back and can see it was not written. Exigent circumstances does not mean hot pursuit. Exigent would be following a suspect into a house and having to kick in the door to get to the suspect. Following an investigative lead within an appropriate amount of time also involves such circumstances, short of kicking in a door. CCC makes the point we have no idea what Wade's intentions were as he could have easily left the county. Also, you mention a warrant is needed prior to search. True. But please explain to me what search was done. And remember, right to privacy versus in public view / accessible to the public. (Looking forward to the answer.)

Finally, reading the law in those fancy books and knowing the practical application of the law are totally different. "

holy wrote on Jul 31, 2008 1:34 PM:

" Thought I would chime in about the Mariah's challenge issue....Yes there are others in this town that are viewing the challenge as a witch hunt. When this first started, it was a wonderful challenge that Leo put forth to Mariah's class, however it has taken on a life of it's own and there are individuals that have gone over the top with it.

Kids are taking the challenge and drinking with the wristbands and the tee shirts on, they are just responding to peer pressure to wear the items. They are not being educated!

The education needs to be reinforced over and over. Kids are not taking this seriously. Are the parents sitting down and explaining the challenge? Do they understand the entire challenge? It is not only to not drink and drive it is NOT to drink when you are underage period. As adults it is not to drink and drive.

People who are not so close to this can see the big picture and how it is starting to get twisted and turned. "

npubem_noka wrote on Jul 31, 2008 1:11 PM:

" ccc--if Petersen was in danger of flight, why wait around at his parents' house?--he could have been nearly to Bozeman, Helena, Dillon, or halfway to Missoula by the time he was arrested.

As Ostin points out, if Moore was using hot pursuit as a rationale for entering the property, that would have been noted in the previously filed case documents. Since it wasn't noted, I think we can safely say that flight was not an issue here. "

ostinmontana wrote on Jul 31, 2008 1:03 PM:

" CCC: Additionally, IF Officer Moore was concerned about the evidence disappearing, it would have been much smarter to get a warrant rather than do what he did. If Officer Moore had simply waited for a warrant, the defense would not be able to bring up the charge that the Officer violated Mr. Peterson's Fourth Amendment rights. "

ostinmontana wrote on Jul 31, 2008 1:01 PM:

" CCC: It does not matter whether or not there was evidence of Peterson fleeing-the doctrine of hot pursuit HAS NOT been implicated here.

What makes you so sure I do not have a law degree? "

ccc wrote on Jul 31, 2008 12:43 PM:

" Ostin
What makes you so certain that the evidence does not suggest Petersen was in danger of fleeing or that the evidence was in danger of disappearing? Wade Petersen had an apartment in Helena. How do you know that he wasn't home gathering his stuff to leave and hide his truck in another county. How do you know he doesn't have a friend in town or out with a body shop that could have made some changes to the evidence. You too are not privy to all the evidence - nor do you have a law degree. "

ostinmontana wrote on Jul 31, 2008 12:01 PM:

" Macker: You bring up the doctrine of "hot pursuit" incorrectly as it is not at issue here in the way you suggest. The county attorney has not argued that Officer Moore was in hot pursuit because the evidence does not suggest that Peterson was in danger of fleeing or that the evidence was in danger of disappearing (which would be required for the doctrine to be used). If hot pursiut were an issue in the way you suggest, the current hearings and previous affidavits would reflect that--but they do not.

Without hot pursuit, the officer is required to get a warrant before he searched the private property. This warrant requirement will turn on whether Peterson had a reasonable expectation of privacy in his driveway near his home...that is the question for this court (and subsequent appeals courts) to decide. You may wish to examine the Montana Supreme Court cases interpreting Article II-Section 10 and 11--you do not appear to understand the law in this area. "

macker wrote on Jul 31, 2008 11:39 AM:

" Boy, someone goes to sleep for the night and this thing goes and BLOWS UP. About the feeling of the defendant, none of us know and so throwing the accusations is not really accurate. (Again I think the parents should tell their boy to MAN up, but that is just me.) Yes, he is innocent until proven guilty, but there are a lot of factors that point to guilt so that is why most people here are formulating their opinion toward guilt.

Ellie-Iris, second chances are great. Tell me, when does Mariah get hers? After 5 years? 20? And the other girls, do they get their second chance at a life without fear and nightmares after 5 years? Don't you think these young ladies are going to suffer for most of the rest of their lives?

SJG, DARE was cancelled due to its ineffectiveness. Sgt. Davis did a great job with the program for years (I am a grad) but the program was not a success so most schools nationwide have discontinued the program to save money. If DARE was a success, why is there a drinking problem here with those underage???

Ostin, again your view of the law is a little off. Without using great words like vis-a-vie and henceforth and to wit, I defend my post prior to this one concerning following an investigative lead. What I left off that statement was time. Had Ofc. Moore followed the tracks up the driveway the next day, then it is not as effective. When he immediately leaves the scene of a crime and follows an investigative lead (Shot in the Dark) then there is an arguement of exigent circumstances. And, concerning dirveways, the law is pretty much the same around the nation. It does not matter if there are BUSHES or TREES or whatever around your driveway. What really matters is access to said driveway and how it is controlled.

Looking forward to hearing from everyone. (By the way, my spelling today is not good.) "

seeuincourt wrote on Jul 31, 2008 11:13 AM:

" Export for an individual or that individuals family not to comment publicly for killing a young lady, then to go on record defending his actions that evening tells me that they lack remorse for this entire event. I understand that they are defending their son, but to expect compassion for a family that is continuing this charade is beyond belief.

Wade is arguing that he is not *Guilty as Charged* is how you explain his denials. He admitted to drinking * His BAC was over the legal limit for a 20 year old * He admitted it was his truck that slammed into the girls * He admitted to leaving the crime scene.

Tell me Export how can he defend that he IS NOT GUILTY AS CHARGED? He has already admitted to all of the above so his only hope is to get it thrown out! That is the actions of a coward and the family that supports this action lack morals! "

butteexport wrote on Jul 31, 2008 10:49 AM:

" seeuincourt--maybe Im confused as to the definition of remorse, but I dont see why Petersens family should feel remorse for their actions in this case--and I don't see why the family should kowtow to your opinions regarding their sons actions. There are at least two sides to this story, and the events of that night are *obviously* still up for debate (thats the whole point of this hearing, right?)--just because someone disagrees with the way youve decided to see things doesnt make them a liar.

I don't think it's at all unreasonable for Petersen and his family to disagree with the county attorney's assessment (and the resulting charges) of their sons actions--and thats whats really at issue here. Petersen is denying hes guilty *as charged*--he hasnt denied he was driving the truck, as I recall. Myself, I think 60 years is rather harsh for a first offense, especially when the offense was not committed with any kind of malicious intent.

I also think Petersen and his familys concerns as to the manner in which Petersen was treated by law enforcement are valid--*everyone* has rights (e.g. rights to privacy, against illegal search and seizure, and to a fair trial, among a few others) and *everyone* deserves to have those rights observed at all times--rights arent reserved just for the people you like.

sjg--I too am curious about what's happening with the person who bought the beer at the party...if we're going to hold people accountable in this case, shouldn't everyone involved be held accountable? "

ostinmontana wrote on Jul 31, 2008 10:44 AM:

" Some people migh be reminded that Mr. Peterson is innocent UNTIL proven guilty. He has not been proven guilty at this point. He is entitled to his defense and those that deride it should study why our founding fathers thought the principles of justice and fairness were so important as fundamental rights of human beings.

Mr. Burton: You may wish to update your knowledge of American criminal procedure and constitutional law vis-a-vie the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments and Montana criminal procedure and constituional law vis-a-vie Montana's Constitution (Article II-Sections 10 and 11). In California, where you do your work, a person does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in their driveway. In Montana, where privacy rights are regarded as much more important than California, a person does have a reasonable expectation of privacy in their driveway.

Will Peterson have a reasonable expectation of privacy in his driveway? That question is for the courts to decide, based on several factors. Does a reasonable person believe that their private driveway, shielded by bushes at midnight is a private place? I sure would--but not everyone agrees.

Mr. Burton, you said it was irrelevant how Officer Moore got to the end of Peterson's driveway. I completely disagree; the legal cases regarding this issue (cases interpreting the Constituion of Montana and the United States) do not support your argument that it is completely irrelevant. If Officer Moore illegaly entered the property, the "fruit of the poisenous tree" doctrine will kick in and ALL evidence stemming from the illegal entry will be inadmissable--that seems highly RELEVANT to me. You may know investigation as you claim, but you do not appear to know the law in Montana and the United States. "

annd wrote on Jul 31, 2008 10:27 AM:

" Computer glitches do happen - since the posts are here, that leads me to believe there isn't a big "conspiracy" -
This situation affected all of Butte -- just as an expression of hatred -- and the ugly beating incident that happened -- did. Butte is a caring community in most respects, but if I were in charge, I would have a mind to stop the forums once they become out of hand. There are people who know more (personal friends), or know more about law than others. We'll probably all likely agree, that if the suspect doesn't get consequences, that would be a sad occurrence. Anyone could see that this wouldn't be "just." The value of a person's life shuld be considered. But, I truly believe all the parties suffer greatly. Spokaneman already said it well - when you see the visibility of this situation it hits home "again." We had a serious incident that still triggers some of the same issues (again) and the emotion gets overpowering. And, in this case a terrible, life-altering tragedy occurred. Mariah's Challenge is brought up because "good" can arise from that (out of bad, good can come). Nothing can (now) change the occurrences, but positive results can be had. The law works in mysterious ways, sometimes it appears an overhaul of the system seems necessary, and unjust things happen. There should be so much "less" finger-pointing (between those commenting, for the police, for the lawyers) ... really, what good does it do? Yes, venting is good -- but arguing back & forth and disagreements aren't producing anything but animosity "

butteforme wrote on Jul 31, 2008 10:27 AM:

" OUTTABUTTE: Are you seriously advocating that should Petersen be found guilty of vehicular manslaughter that his punishment be that he go talk to schools? He ruined his and many other lives the night he choose to drink and drive but you say he should just have to go talk about it. Work with the family are you insane. If someone killed your daughter would you just say come on let's go talk to the school together. Fifty years is not enough. I was raised with an eye for an eye. "

seeuincourt wrote on Jul 31, 2008 10:05 AM:

" Out you are out of your mind. I have never seen ANYONE representing Mariahs Challenge use the organization as a which hunt. Again you use your - but I cant name names - BS as justification for your comments. You are an idiot.

WE all know that he is not remorseful because he still denies that he committed this crime! How hard is that for you to understand? He has convinced himself and his entire family that he is innocent! That is not the actions of a person who is remorseful.

With regard to you vengeance comment. The great State of Montana says that he has earned 60 years for his crimes. That is the price that we want him to pay. As far as the family losing everything that is the price that they are choosing to pay. If they were moral persons, they would have convinced their son to admit to these crimes and take his medicine. Instead, they have chosen another path. If they lose everything - -so be it!

But I hardly think that they will have lost everything as they still have all of their children with them dont they! "

sft wrote on Jul 31, 2008 9:13 AM:

" Ok, Montana Standard guys... What's up man!!! First, this discussion forum is deleted from the site! (second time this story's discussion has been mysteriously erased! Gee don't think anybody's being biast do you???) And now the discussion regarding the suppression of evidence for the Peterson case is HERE? Under the story about the Fire? Where did the comments about the fire go??? The voice of the community is WORTH HEARING!!! Everyone who thinks so should chime in on this one! While we don't always agree, It's the fact that the community is discussing the issues and letting each other know how we feel and showing our differing opinions that educates us all. If you're going to allow your readers to speak, then allow them to speak FREELY! "

outtabutte wrote on Jul 31, 2008 9:01 AM:

" IR well, alot of people, I am not going to post names here but alot of people I have talked to think that its intention was good but that it has gotten off track. (Personal attacks if you don't agree with EVERYTHING that is said then watch out!)This has come from a few people who attended meetings and events. It comes across as agree with what we say or you are wrong, insensitive, on Peterson's side. Like I said, it started out as something I could believe in but SOME people (not McCarthys) but some of the messingers have turned it into a witch hunt againt the entire Peterson family and Belke and I don't think that is right. Of course that is just my opinion which I am sure some one will say is wrong because it does not agree with them.
Soccermom, forgiveness begings within your own heart, I have forgiven people who have not asked for it, because it was best for me, FORGIVNESS began the healing process.You keep saying this guy is not remorsefull how do you know that? Did he tell you that, has his family told you that? Where do you get that from? What he did was wrong but for YOU to say the things about his family that you have said is wrong too. You wish his family to lose there home and business. Why? Because they love their son and are willing to fight for him? Of course they are going to fight for them he is their child and even though they know what he did was wrong they don't want his life destroyed for it. Sending him to jail for 50 years will not bring her back nor will it change anything, it will just ruing another life. Maybe he could go to schools and talk about what he did wrong with the McCarthy family and actually work with them to make a change for the better.Or maybe people can just want vengance, which is what you seem to want.
SJG you said it best, your being attacked and your words are being twisted so that the person doing so feels better about themselves. I feel just as bad for you and your loss as I do the McCarthey family and the questions and comments you posted are your valid thoughts and opinions do not let anyone take that away from you. Some people actually agree with what you are saying. "

bettylou wrote on Jul 31, 2008 8:56 AM:

" outtabutte
You should stay out of butte. you have no idea what you are talking about. the petersons could have done the right thing, asked for forgiveness, and tried to help spread the message about the horrors of drinking and driving. instead, they are acting as if wade has done nothing wrong. it is too bad. as for belke, he could have decided not to take the case. greed was his motivation. he pay pay his price somedy too. "

seeuincourt wrote on Jul 31, 2008 8:51 AM:

" Outtabutte I want to address your questions with regard to how we all know that the Petersen lacks remorse for the sins of their son. You ask how do we know that they are not remorseful. Because every public statement that comes out of this family defends Wade that he just hit a deer. Every statement out of that house defends the rights of a living killer vs the rights of the dead and injured. Every action taken by the Petersen family defends the actions of Wade the night he took the life of an innocent young lady.

You tell me, how can ANYONE in Butte feel compassion or feel any sort of forgivness towards this family whose only actions and whose only statements are in the defense of this animals actions?

Soccermom is right. In order to receive forgivness, one must ask for it and in order to ask for it, one must fully accept responsibility for his actions. There is not one Petersen family member who has accepted any responsibility for their actions that evening.

Do not give me your crap about the ultimate courage is forgivness. The ultimate courage would have been displayed by Wade had he taken his cell phone out of his pocket and called for help instead of leaving this young lady to die! "

IR wrote on Jul 31, 2008 8:02 AM:

" outtabutte... you say that "Not everyone in Butte thinks that Mariahs challenge is a wonderful thing".

Who feels this way besides you?

What is not wonderful about Mariah's challenge? "

sjg wrote on Jul 31, 2008 7:56 AM:

" It is obvious that inclusive discussion really isn't possible on this site. My attempt to empathize with the parents of these girls and boy has only brought on attack as my being judgmental. I do not judge or BLAME the parents. The blame extends beyond the events of this accident. Attempts to gain information about the person who bought the beer have gone unanswered. There must be someone out there who knows the scoop. My statments have been twisted to promote some contributors personal agenda of hatred and vengeful action. Butte is an amazing place. The VAST number of people are decent, hard working, kind, understanding and forgiving. I would like to see more of their input here, but they would probably get the same reception that I did. Unfortunately, the majority posting on this blog has only reinforced and promoted Butte's negative reputation.

As for the trial: Most likely there will be one or some kind of plea after these intial proceedings. If not, the process should continue somewhere else in a more impartial enviornment.

Whatever happened to the DARE program we did in elementary school? Does that still exist? Good program with teaching that I still carry. Any way the Challenge and DARE could cooperate on a common goal? Still wish McCarthy's the best in their attempts with the challenge. "

soccermom wrote on Jul 31, 2008 7:40 AM:

" outtabutte - How can a family forgive if the person who committed this crime has not asked for forgivness?

How can a family forgive a person who has not admitted publicaly that he hit these young ladies then fled?

How can a person recieve forgivness if he is not remorseful for his actions?

Do you really expect this animal to get any compassion when all he and his family has done is lie about this crime? "

outtabutte wrote on Jul 31, 2008 6:35 AM:

" I did not thing my original post to Spokaneman went through so I double posted sorry about that.
Butte I would guess the editor or mod of this forum is the one who fixed it. I have no friends at the standard I hate to burst your bubble.
Sugarcookie, don't read too much into the name, I am not really gone from Butte. I thought his comments were rude. I am entitled to my opinion. Do I have to agree with everything that people say on here? I don't think so.
Soccer mom, how do you know that the Peterson family is not suffering? You say that they made no effort to speak to the McCarthy family, if I recall they were told TO STAY AWAY from the family. Have you made an effort to talk to the Petersons and find out how they feel?
You don't know how they are feeling, you have no idea what they are going through, we all know that the McCarthy family has suffered a great loss but the Peterson family is going through hell them selves. You hope they lose everything they have, their home their business (your words from an earlier post that was deleted) you hope this guy rots in prision forever, you have no compassion for the Peterson family (not Wade, that is understandable) but for his family. You have bad mouthed Brad Belke who was HIRED to do a job. Like it or not, it is his job, he is sworn to do the best job he can for his client regareless of the crime.
My personal opinion is that true healing starts with forgiveness. To to be able to forgive someone for the wrongs they have done is the ultimate sign of courage. Forgivness is something that should be instilled in our youth and adults alike. I hope someday the McCarthy family can find it in their hearts to forgive Mr. Peterson for what he has done. "

outtabutte wrote on Jul 31, 2008 6:07 AM:

" Spokaneman, I am sorry that I got inon the Mariahs Challenge article.
I came here to post that I think Wade Peterson deserves a fair trial.That I think Brad Belke is doing a job that he is being paid for and that there is a possibility, however slight, that the Police may have messed up the investigation, and if they did then they should have the evidence supressed at trial.
Not everyone in Butte thinks that Mariahs challenge is a wonderful thing, however, I do admire the McCarthy family for their efforts.
Also sir you also annonimously post here as I think we all do. "

BUTTE GIRL wrote on Jul 31, 2008 2:11 AM:

" Sjg: First and foremost I would like to tell you how very sorry I am that you lost a child. However, I am appalled by the fact that you feel Mariah's Challege was only started because she was popular or that her parents are well known. That could not be further from the truth. After losing his beloved daughter, Leo made a beautiful speach at her funeral. He spoke directly to her peers and he challenged them to be m.i.p. free and to never drink and drive. He had just lost his little girl and he had the courage to stand up there and try and save our children. He told the kids he did not want any of their parent to go through what he was going through. I truly believe his message got through to them. The chalenge was then spearheaded by the friends and family of Mariah to save the rest of Butte's chidren. How could one find any wrong in that? I am in no way judging you, I woud not have been able to do what Leo has done. However, please do not judge this man or the community who rallied behind him. I am sure the same would have been done for you and yours. Leo had the courage to stand up for our children and I will forever be grateful. God Bless. "

butte wrote on Jul 31, 2008 1:52 AM:

" outtabutte must have a friend at the standard i correct him then his statement is corrected nice!!!!!!!1 "

BUTTE GIRL wrote on Jul 31, 2008 1:50 AM:

" I am appalled that anyone may believe for a moment that wade thought he had hit a deer. Can anyone of you honestly say that after striking something with your car you would just simply drive away? I have no more pity for him than he had for the girls that night!

Also, I would like to thank Leo McCarthy for being such an amazing man. In his hour of grief, his ultimate concern was our children. What an amazing selfless act! I honestly believe Mariah's Challenge has changed the way of thinking for the majority of her classmates. My son and his friends came home from her funeral swollen eyed and determined. They have since chosen to be alcohol free. Can you imagine what a wonderful young lady she was to break the hearts and change the minds of these boys. It amazes me how a fifteen year old can have more knowledge of right vs. wrong. Mr Peterson could learn aot from these children.

To Wade's parents, I cannot imagine how this has changed your life. However, it is high time this young man learns that there are consequences to his actions! He killed young girl, quit making excuses for him.

To those of you who judged Mariah's parents for letting her walk a block away from home at midnight...Do you have a teenager? My son is Mariah's age and he drives a vehicle! Why would anyone think that walking a friend home in Butte Montana would be dangerous. I am sure her parents struggle with that every day. They should not have to, they did nothing wrong. Let's try to remember who is on trial.
May god bless the McCarthy family. "

John Burton wrote on Jul 31, 2008 12:47 AM:

" Ostin: Ofc. Moore's entering onto private property via a driveway has no bearing whatsoever on whether or not he made contact with suspect. How he came to be at the Petersen's house is irrelevant. He (Ofc. Moore) could just as easily have been driving around the/a neighborhood looking for pickup trucks matching the description of the suspect vehicle given by the witness.

However he (Ofc. Moore) arrived at the Petersen house is completely irrelevant. How he developed probable cause to believe that Petersen was the driver (suspect) of the vehicle responsible for the accident is a matter which would have been disclosed in the intitial police report.

In order to make an arrest for this crime, all Ofc. Moore would have needed to do was form the opinion that Mr. Petersen had been driving the vehicle at the time of the accident.

If Mr. Petersen made statements to Ofc. Moore while he (Ofc. Moore) was speaking to him at his (Petersen's) home---and he (Petersen) was not under arrest at the time, or the conditions under which he was speaking to Ofc. Moore were such that a reasonable person would not think he was under arrest/in-custody (i.e., in handcuffs in the the back seat of a radio car)---then any and all statements made by Mr. Petersen would be entirely admissable as they would have been made during the course of Ofc. Moore's investigation of the incident.

Mr. Petersen's attorney has no choice but to try to suppress the evidence/statements as they are what more than likely allowed Ofc. Moore to develop the probable cause necessary to form the opinion that Mr. Petersen had been the driver of the vehicle which struck Ms. McCarthy.

Mr. Petersen's attorney is doing his job. He has no choice but to attack how the investigation was conducted.

Your implication that the BSBPD is corrupt today because it suffered from corruption in the past is ridiculous.

And, Ostin, you've never conducted a criminal investigation, or functioned as a practicing attorney. All you know is what you read.

There isn't any police investigation which couldn't be/have been conducted differently or better. Nothing ever gets done perfectly. It's just the way it is. "

lexirie wrote on Jul 31, 2008 12:17 AM:

" arg that is all i can say is arg. people just try to start fights on this thing and it is stupid. so i will make my idiot comments because it can. and try not to start a fight. i have hit a deer, and guess what, there was a mark on my car and on the road and debri. all i ment was that if he says he hit a deer as an alibi they should check where he said that he hit the deer for evidence, ya know cover their bases. to me it makes sense, but to some this is just another idiotic comment, so my advise pass it over and read the intelligent onces. I got in my two cents and i am happy. and the last part was facetious to the oj trial when they said if the glove doesn't fit your must aquit. "

CalRipken wrote on Jul 30, 2008 9:39 PM:

" Thanks for clarification, macker. I agree that police and fire and some others must make split second decisions and are subject to the public eye. Everyone does make mistakes and when it comes to police it is serious business. Like I have said before, make a mistake at many jobs and hardly anyone even cares. Do it as a cop or fireman and you are front page news, even if you have done nothing wrong. It comes with the territory, but I know that cops get more satisfaction from the service they provide than people in other professions. "

soccermom wrote on Jul 30, 2008 9:21 PM:

" SJG - I never called you a perfect mom for the simple reason that you can so easily blame the victims parents for this homicide that a drunken fool is responsible for.

I am curious, What was the decision making process that led to the loss of your family member? Did you make all of the right choices or did you come to the conclusion that at times terrible things happen to people that dont deserve it? "

Ellie-Iris wrote on Jul 30, 2008 9:18 PM:

" Ok I would first like to say my heart goes out to the McCarthy family for the loss of their daughter. I would like to say that because Wade didn't show any remorse doesn't mean he isn't remorseful. People are remorseful in a lot of ways like anger. I'm sure Wade is remorseful but he just isn't a person who shows emotion. I don't think Wade should go to prison for next 30 years and the extra 20 years for hurting the other two girls. To me he should get 10 years, 5 of probation, and then he can talk to the schools about the dangers of drinking and driving. Now I don't know if this is Wade's firt offense but if it is 30-50 years in prison is ridiculous. Is Wade an evil guy who deserves 30-50 years in prison? My opinion is no he isn't a evil guy he just made a mistake. He should be given a second chance, and could attend Alcoholism Anonymous classes. Wade should be allowed to try and right a wrong. I don't believe he intended to hit those three girls. A terrible accident like this is what it takes to get people to notice that this town has a problem with alcohol. Butte has always been a drinking town and I wished people would've noticed that days like St. Patricks Day and Evel Knievel days aren't good for Butte I hoped it would make people notice that it isn't ok for this town to be a drinking town. I know that these events bring a lot of business to Butte. But do we really need to keep having Evel Knievel days I mean come on? I think Wade deserves forgiveness and I forgive him. The bible says to forgive that's what everyone need is forgiveness. I'm sure Wade's parents don't want to visit their son in prison for the next 30-50 years. Wade isn't a bad guy he just made a bad mistake. I'm sure he isn't going out in public a lot because he knows people will recognize him. Mr. Belke shouldn't be made a bad guy for defending Wade, I met Mr. Belke and he is a very nice man. Mr. Belke is doing his job and that is to defending Wade and help him stay out of prison. 30-50 years in prison is a little hard on Wade, he didn't mean to hurt anyone, he isn't a bad guy. I'm sure he wishes he could go back and changed what happened that night. What if you were Wade's parents how would you feel? If this is Wade's first offense he shouldn't be give 30-50 years in prison, I think he should get 10 years, 5 years probation, and can talk to the schools about the dangers of drinking and driving. Wade made a mistake, and he isn't a bad guy. Those of who have said that if Wade gets off the Mr. Belke should leave town, I read some of the comments. Well if that does happen just going to say the Mr. Belke was going his job and defending Wade. Is it possible the police gathered the evidence improperly? Yes. There are times when I look back on a on a similar situation, but this accident happened at a party, and I feel the police did a improper job of getting the right people involved. I still feel that way now, because my family had to go through a lot, and the right people who were responsible weren't even arrested. "

seeuincourt wrote on Jul 30, 2008 9:12 PM:

" outtabutte - the Petersen family is not suffering! You are just plain wacked if you think that they are.

They see thier son every day, they talk with their son every day, and when he is in prison, they can write to their son everyday.

The only thing that they are suffering from is the bills that their two hired guns are charging them to keep their son out of prison.

What a coward. Stand up and take your medicine Wade. "

sugarcookie1 wrote on Jul 30, 2008 9:02 PM:

" Spokaneman is right, it is about time that steps are being taken to help our youth. He merely spoke of the struggle that it takes the family to spread Mariah's Challenge. His comments were not rude in the least littel bit, but since you need to create controvesy to feel important, you kicked him in the groin. You are a petty person and am glad that you are OUTTABUTTE! "

outtabutte wrote on Jul 30, 2008 8:40 PM:

" Well Spokaneman, I came to this to discuss the trial, sorry I got caught up in Mirah's Challenge talk. I chose not to involve myself with this cause in anyway for personal reasons that have nothing to do with the McCarthy family. You also chose to post annoimousley, I am pretty sure most of us here do.
Back to the article at hand, I think Mr Peterson is entitled to a fair trial with an impartial jury, and IF the police did screw up the investigation then I hope the evidence is supressed and that justice (for all ) prevails. "

spokaneman wrote on Jul 30, 2008 8:15 PM:

" outtabutte - you can interpret my words any way you wish as you post annoimously. If you were to read my post with an open mind, you would understand that I was not being rude to SJG rather finally releved that some action is being taken. I am sure if you talk to SJG, she would tell you that she wishes the family of the tragedy prior to hers had done something that could have saved the life of her family member.

rather than slamming everyone on here because you can without people knowing who you are, why dont you do something to help rather than hinder the cause? "

macker wrote on Jul 30, 2008 8:05 PM:

" Cal, you are correct. I was not speaking of evidence and such. I also meant it more in relation to the media as the prosecution would rather try the case in court where as the defense tries cases in the media. Prior to trial, discovery is an ongoing process and often times information will be held until the last possible moment so the defense has to scramble to come up with a game plan.

Ostin, I will have to wait to get to a library to read that text as it is not available on line. Not sure if you know Butte's law enforcement history, but is not a secret at how corrupt of a department it was at one time. But I guess people like you continue to judge those currently based on mistakes of the past. I guess you blame anyone working hard in the mine today for all the damage done to Butte by the Copper Kings. For that matter, do you still blame the Jewish for the death of Jesus. (Again, just a mistake in the past.) I defend the PD because several officers are friends of mine, because they would not post on here and discuss cases as it is usless banter, because someone has to. I guess it is really easy for you all to live in glass house because there must be a major lack of stones. I never get on here and say they are infalible, everyone makes mistakes. It is just when you make a mistake not everyone says how you messed up even though you had all day to make your decision. Cops and Firemen have an instant to make a decision and sometimes it is wrong. But, I guess next time your in need of help, you could give them 30 minutes to make a plan before they help.

And, just so you know, MAN-E-ACHE, the BFD would not just clean a crime scene willy-nilly. I can assure you all the evidence was collected long before any cleaning of the crime was done. But I guess you believe anything Belke says so you must be......well, something.

Talk to you soon. "

bettylou wrote on Jul 30, 2008 7:59 PM:

" outtabutte - Spokaneman is simply responding to things SJG started. She opened the can of worms this morning when she decided to start up the "blame the victim" tact again. Do not think for one minute that everyone suffering with this doesn't go over every minute of that horrible day thinking what if. Her comments about the girls and what they were doing is what was mean spirited and cruel. There is no degree of suffering or grief. Only people's response to it. "

outtabutte wrote on Jul 30, 2008 7:10 PM:

" Spokeaneman My heart goes out to the McCarthy family for their loss, and what they did to keep her spirit alive and for her death not to be in vain is wonderful.
For you to suggest that if another mom who lost a child should have done something is just rude. Maybe this mom did not have the strength and support to do such a thing, maybe this mom chose to grieve in private rather than invite the entire world into watch.
Your comment:
Personally, I wish SJG did this after the passing of her daughter. Perhaps if she did, the message that was delivered would have saved the life of Mariah.
is beyond rude it is down right mean! It is not the McCarty family and what they do that I have issue with but comments of some of their friends that leave a bad taste in my mouth. "

sjg wrote on Jul 30, 2008 6:47 PM:

" You assume that because he "shows no remorse" he has no remorse. That might not be true. Just like people who show no signs grief aren't grieving. People do both in their own way. I can count on one hand the number of times anyone has seen me cry or gotton angry. It just isn't in me. Perhaps this family is brought up the same. To assume there is no regret/remorse is judging their emotions by our own or wanting others to suffer like we have and that is not fair. We cannot guage other peoples expressions of their feelings by our own.

and to soccer mom: I never said I was a perfect parent, I only said I would blame myself and search for what I might have done to prevent harm to my kid. The reality is...probably nothing, but I would still wonder and that kind of "what if" is so very heartbreaking.

spokaneman: I truly hope the challenge makes a difference.

I wish actions of the officer were not under scrutiny, but it appears they should be. Feel badly for him too. "

CalRipken wrote on Jul 30, 2008 6:45 PM:

" Sometimes I wonder why I even bother here, but I'll keep it short. 1) It ain't up to the police to disclose anything to the defense, IT IS UP TO THE COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE. Anything and everything the county attorney has in the case file HAS to be disclosed to the defense. If you don't you have a Discovery issue and would have a mistrial. So, macker, you can't withhold stuff until trial. It MUST be turned over to the defense by the County Attorney. That being said, it is obvious Peterson struck the girls while driving intoxicated, he should fry. And all of this crap before the trial (if there ever is a trial) is unfortunate. But the Peterson man does have his due process. "

ostinmontana wrote on Jul 30, 2008 6:26 PM:

" Macker: The legal textbook which I referred to is Saltzburg & Capra, American Criminal Procedure ( published by Thomson West, 8th ed., ISBN 978-0-314-18389-7). It contains two full cases and some additional side notes featuring Butte's Finest--which is quite odd considering Butte is such a small town. Your unfaltering support for the Butte Police should be examined... "

outtabutte wrote on Jul 30, 2008 5:37 PM:

" Spokaneman, my post was not meant as a slight to the challenge or to the family of the victims, it was to Soccermom,and her all knowing judgmental posts.She does nothing productive in her posts she simply shoves her opinions down everyones throat. She has wished nothing but ill will not only for the Peterson family (who like it or not are suffering, maybe not as much and maybe not in the same way but they are suffering) and for Brad Belke for simply doing his job. "

annd wrote on Jul 30, 2008 5:09 PM:

" My hearts just go out to all the families. This is a nightmare for the girls' families, for the victim's families, and really, no amount of commenting about it is going to change certain things. Hopefully, there will be some consequence for the action (driving under-age and drunk) and it will cause more to think about what they do, but nothing will "change" what happened -- I also know that I couldn't be all forgiving if someone had hurt a loved one this way, and these families have had to endure this situation, but it's awfully hard (as spokaneman elaborated): every time you read a story, every time you see a poster or billboard you're reminded that you're loved one is not "with you" any longer -- it's devastating --to lose (esp a child) this way and thanks to spokaneman for saying it "so well" "

man-e-ac wrote on Jul 30, 2008 5:07 PM:

" I do not believe that Mr. Petersen hit a deer.

Lexirie- Obviously you have never hit a deer with your car. I have though. It did $2500 in damage to the front of my car and got up and walked away like nothing had ever happened. So think twice before you make such idiotic statements "

seeuincourt wrote on Jul 30, 2008 4:59 PM:

" Ray Petersen said under oath that his son asked to take a Breathalyzer - what again is the penalty for purjury?

Lynn Petersen testified that officer Moore was rough with her son while placing him under arrest and Moore berated him as he was walking him to the patrol car. - I would have to imagine that Wade got better treatment than he gave the girls that night! What a stupid comment!

Petersens blood alcohol content that night was .06 percent, which was measured five hours after the accident, - .06 5 hours later will put his BAC at 1.6 at the time that he killed this young lady

The driver of the pickup truck stopped momentarily after the accident, and then drove away, according to police. A passing motorist called 911 on a cell phone after seeing the victims. - I wish Wade used the cell phone in his pocket to call 911, perhaps Mariah would be alive if he had!

This punk showed NO REMORSE for his actions during this hearing. The entire family has shown remorse at all at any time during the past 9 months. "

man-e-ac wrote on Jul 30, 2008 4:26 PM:

" If officer Moore did not follow proper procedure in the arrest of Mr. Petersen then there is probable cause for any amount of evidence to be suppressed. If Mr. Petersen asked for a breathalyzer and was not given his right to have one then this evidence should be suppressed. However if any amount of evidence is suppressed it is not just officer Moore's fault. Some blame can be placed on the Butte Fire Department for sweeping the scene of the crime before the investigation could be completed. Anyone who believes that the Butte police can do no wrong obviously has not been keeping a close eye on their track record under Sheriff John Walsh.

There was another article about the man who died after a fight at a bar and that the cops were doing a poor job of investigating this crime also as there have been no arrests in this case. I believe they were called "Little Johnny Do Little and the Do Nothings. "

spokaneman wrote on Jul 30, 2008 4:14 PM:

" Outtabutte - On October 27th, Mariah McCarthy was a shy teenager who loved her family and was very loyal to her friends. She was the daughter of a modest insurance agent and homemaker, and little sister to a very loving older sister. She was not pretentious, she was not stuck up, and she did not come from a family whose name is synonymous with Buttes social circles. Mariah was an amazing young lady.

After staying at home all night watching movies, she and her friends walked 2 blocks to bring another friend home. On their way home, they were struck by an alleged drunk driver who chose not to stay at the scene of the homicide to render aid to his victims. Mariah was killed and her 2 friends were seriously injured by the actions of this person.

After grieving with the family for several days, I was astonished to hear Leo McCarthy deliver the most amazing eulogy at the funeral of his daughter. Leo spoke of his beloved family and how they would miss deeply, he spoke how Mariah was such an old soul, and he spoke of how precious life is, and how the most valuable asset that Butte has is her Youth. He challenged all of Buttes youth not drink and drive so that they may grow old and visit his family with families of their own.

Out of this tragic event arose Mariahs Challenge. Through the hard work of MANY individuals who knew that change was needed, an organization was formed to educate and inform Butte on the dangers of underage drinking. The wristbands, billboards, t-shirts and events act as a constant reminder to Butte that change can happen even in Butte.

Outtabutte - What exactly does SJG have to be mad about? I can understand her pain of losing a child as I have witnessed this first hand, but I would think that she more than anyone would be in support of Mariahs Challenge. Let me tell you that every time a family member sees a MC t-shirt or wristband it brings a painful tear to their eyes. Every time Leo speaks at an event he opens a fresh wound in his heart. Every time they passed a billboard with their beautiful daughter on it, crushed their souls.

It would have been VERY easy for the McCarthy family to mourn in private. Many Many evenings full of tears could have been spared by sitting at home instead of out in public delivering Mariahs message. And numerous panic attacks could have been avoided if the McCarthy shut the blinds and turned off the lights. But they know that something needs to happen so that no more of Buttes youth face the untimely demise that Mariah and the daughter of SJG. In the long term, lives will be saved as a result of the McCarthy familys ordeal.

The McCarthy family needs to be praised for the work that they are doing, not vilified for having a name or the right address. Personally, I wish SJG did this after the passing of her daughter. Perhaps if she did, the message that was delivered would have saved the life of Mariah.

Outtabutte I would gladly talk to you or SJG further about Mariahs Challenge and the sacrifices that the family goes thru to deliver the message. Just let me know, and I will get you my phone number.

Thanks to all of those who donate so much of their time to Mariahs Challenge as it is thru this work that others will be saved. "

sjg wrote on Jul 30, 2008 3:00 PM:

" My apololgies for offending. I said, it was best for my family to leave Butte. I didn't leave because I don't love butte or its people, but I just don't get its mentality or it's vigilanty nastiness. And I wasn't meaning to be hurtful toward the parents of these girls, I only meant that there are more than enough heartaches and regrets for both families and anyone involved that night. Having said that, I can't recall Petersen boy say he wasn't the driver, but that he didn't KNOW what he had hit, and thought it might have been a deer. Am I wrong? I would like to think that if he had known he would have stayed or maybe he was confused or frightened. At least I am open to considering that possibility. I am equally upset for the families of the girls. I believe that petersen and his attorneys do not feel he is guilty of what he is charged. That is what I get from the stuff that I heard while visiting family there. I have been on that road where the girls were hit. It is not well lit. It is dark even with the lights. Again, what about the person who bought booze for them? Why aren't they/he/she being held accountable as well? "

macker wrote on Jul 30, 2008 2:46 PM:

" First off, Ostin, tell me the name of the legal textbooks and such where I can find the information you say is out there. Just becasue you read something in the "Bad Boys of Butte" or some other pathetic piece does not mean it is in legal textbooks. It is in legal textbooks that you are uninformed and in serious need of a good attitude adjustment. (See, just by writing it is in legal textbooks does not make it so.)

Also, I know nothing about where this killer lives, but if it were a simple driveway, then Ofc. Moore can do whatever he wants in concerns to an investigation. If it is a long drawn out driveway but is not posted as private property, then again, since anyone can potentially drive the path, so can Ofc. Moore. Even if it is posted as no trespassing, Ofc. Moore can follow an INVESTIGATIVE LEAD (Shot in the Dark) into such as area. Otherwise, criminals would simply run to marked private property everytime they committed a crime.

If Ofc. Moore had to break thru a locked gate, then there may be an issue. But, even so, YOU AND I dont know everything that happened that night and neither does the PAPER. The Police dont give all the information they have until the trial, otherwise the defense is able to make a plan of attack against the prosecution.

I dont know SJG and if she lost someone I am truely sorry. But the Challenge was spearheaded by a family who lost a child and taken up by locals and the press. I dont know if SJG tried this and if she did and it did not work, then something may be wrong. But for you to insinuate that only certain familes get taken care of here in Butte makes you an a**%o*e. "

digger4life wrote on Jul 30, 2008 1:32 PM:

" ostin, read the article before you capitalize something. How can they be Officer Moore's own words when Jackson said them? Moore just agreed. I'm going to have to side with Macker, because of his law enforcement background. "

butteforme wrote on Jul 30, 2008 1:29 PM:

" The word everyone here is looking for is ACCOUNTABILITY.
The lawyers need to let him face the music at trial, if he is found not guilty then so be it.
Let him take the stand and tell his story, whatever version he can come up with at that time. "

outtabutte wrote on Jul 30, 2008 12:55 PM:

" I am sorry I mentioned the wrong officer, my horrible mistake, it WAS someone else, someone else who drank and drove and someone eles by the grace of god did not kill someone else, someone else who by the grace of god was given a second chance.
IF the police botched the investigation, and the evidence is supressed then they have to live with that just like IF Wade Peterson gets off, he still has to live with what he did for the rest of his life, guilt can be a very hard thing to deal with.
Soccer mom if you were not so self absorbed with this you would realize that sjg also had a child killed by a drunk driver a few years ago (remember she posted that a while back and asked you if you remembered it? Looks like you didn't) So she does know a bit of what she talks about! She said that there were no bracelets, no challenge, no billboards for her child and I think she has a right to be mad about it still that her child was killed by a drunk driver, and yet no one in town seems to remember it. Is it because she didnt have a name or the right address or is it for some other reason? We may never know.
Belke is doing his JOB and if I were in trouble I would want him to do the best job he could to get me off. I think if I did something this bad I would just plead guilty but I am not Wade Peterson and I don't know how his mind works. "

ostinmontana wrote on Jul 30, 2008 12:38 PM:

" bettylou: Officer Moore likely believe Mariah to be dead because when the paramedics found her she had no heartbeat. CPR later brought her back briefly. This does not mean Mrs. Peterson was engaged in perjury. "

lexirie wrote on Jul 30, 2008 12:30 PM:

" he said that he hit a deer. where is the deer. was there ever a deer found near where he said he hit it? I don't think it would be moving to well after being hit by a truck. if the deer did not get hit then you must not aquit "

buttewhat86 wrote on Jul 30, 2008 12:17 PM:

" Hey sjg:
If getting out of butte is the best thing you ever did....... then stay the hell out and leave Butte's business to Butte people. We don't need your input, and to be honest, I dont think anybody here gives a damn what you think.

You got out, now stay out-
hmmmmmmmm "

soccermom wrote on Jul 30, 2008 12:00 PM:

" SJG - All i can say is good riddance!

For all of your superior wisdom, you still do not know crap about the events that evening. Why dont you reserve your hurtful comments towards the families until after you get yourself educated as to what really happened that evening.

Butte just feels smarter with you gone! "

ostinmontana wrote on Jul 30, 2008 11:57 AM:

" The question for the court (and subsequent appeals courts) will be whether Officer Moore had appropriate probable cause to enter the Peterson's private property. This probable cause is a requirement of our Fourth Amendment against unreasonable searches and seizures. A "shot in the dark" (Officer Moore's OWN WORDS) is NOT probable cause nor sufficient justification to enter private property. If Officer Moore did not have the probable cause to enter the property, ALL EVIDENCE from the arrest, including blood alcohol levels and any statements made, will be inadmissible.

If evidence is supressed, the Butte Police will be to blame for not following constituional requirements. Again, the Butte Police are well-known for not following constituional requirements in this area--in fact, the Butte Police show up in legal textbooks on criminal procedure across the country because they have had difficulty with following criminal procedure.

I truly hope that the evidence is admissible...but if it is found to be inadmissible, the Butte Police will be the only ones to blame for not following our constitution. "

bettylou wrote on Jul 30, 2008 11:57 AM:

" sjg Read what I wrote... I said " I am very curious as to how Mrs. Petersen could have heard Officer Moore say "...you killed a girl".

I too am so happy you moved out of Butte. The last thing we need is another self-righteous POS who thinks ANYONE is to blame for this accident besides the driver of the car. It was not the middle of the night, and these girls were walking friends halfway home on a well lit walking path. Interesting comment about narrowmindedness. If only we were all perfect parents like you! "

macker wrote on Jul 30, 2008 11:55 AM:

" WOW, I am almost ashamed to say I live and work in Butte. To read what some of you are saying makes me want to jump thru the computer and slap the s*&t out of some people.

Yes, Belke is just doing his job. But he chose his profession and had to know cases like this would come up and he would have defend someone. But, when he places the blame for what happened that night on eveyone but his client, he becomes a bad person. There are ways to defend people without passing the blame.

To (way)outtabutte, I really hope you live up to your name. To blame the PD for this case is moronic. I missed the part where the BPD car ran over three girls. Guess that was not in the article. I could care less if this were tried in Two Dot or Circle. The evidence is there and WILL be there for any trial which will take place.

Ostin, let me explain how police leads work. Police get some kind of clue and follow that clue until it leads to something or doesn't. Clues are things like TRACKS in driveways. Some may call this a shot in the dark, others would call it following investigative leads. And there was plenty of PROBABLE CAUSE for arrest (or at the very least an investigative detention) due to witness statements.

Whnin...who cares what time it was. Guess running over 3 girls before 6 pm should be legal but after dark is fine???

I really wish Peterson's parents would have been challenged in court due to their statements. I am all for defending your kids but trying to help them get away with killing someone is unacceptable. Astro makes a great point that if his parents thought he was not intoxicated yet after 5 hours he still produced a BAC of .06, obviously Wade drank often. Also, the mother saying Officer Moore mistreated her child and was rough with him and scolded him for "killing a girl" is just BS.

I really hope Lynn and Ray are proud and with any justice they can get a cell next to Wade for lying.

Be a man Wade. You made a horrible mistake. Live up to it. Two girls will never be the same due to you and one family will always suffer due to their loss. At least let this chapter in their lives pass and allow them to move on. "

sjg wrote on Jul 30, 2008 11:39 AM:

" bettylou: From the article it says that Petersens Mom heard the officer. Not Petersen. Just what is happening with the person who bought the beer?

Whnindbtnt: you are right about the parents responsibility and these very young girls being out together on dark streets in the middle of the night. If that was my kid I would be overcome with my own grief, guilt and what ifs. The same if I were Petersen's parents.

Butteforme: we really don't know what has been going on between County attorneys and Petersen's lawyers. Only what has been in the paper or rumored.

The best thing I ever did is move my family out of Butte after my divorce. The narrowmindedness of people like soccermom and the Butte elite make me want to go hmmmmmm. "

soccermom wrote on Jul 30, 2008 11:37 AM:

" ostin - you are notorious for getting your facts wrong. Their driveway IS NOT considered private property. It was not posted as such, normal deliveries are made using this road, thay lease the land out to other non private entities.

Officer Moore was trying to catch a fugitive who just fled a homicide. All of the probable cause in the world was left at the homicide scene and in the driveway. "

soccermom wrote on Jul 30, 2008 11:24 AM:

" goldtooth - the VAST majority of the people that i know would NEVER be in Petersens shoes!

The VAST majority of the people i know would have stopped, called for help, then begun administering aid to this victims.

The VAST mojority of people I know would not have left these girls to die!! "

digger4life wrote on Jul 30, 2008 11:21 AM:

" ostin, sure following those tracks was "a shot in the dark." The officer could have pulled into every driveway along that road. The probable cause for knocking on the door of the Peterson house happened to be the pickup that was missing pieces of grill and bumper that happened to be left at the crime scene. All of this is in the affidavit, which someone posted the link to in a previous story. "

bettylou wrote on Jul 30, 2008 11:07 AM:

" I am very curious as to how Mrs. Petersen could have heard Officer Moore say "...you killed a girl". At the time of Mr. Petersen's arrest, no one had died yet. Additionally, I would imagine after the scene of the accident Officer Moore had just left, he would have no idea if there was 0, 1, 2 or 3 casualties. Can you say perjury. "

grady59 wrote on Jul 30, 2008 10:43 AM:

" soccermom is right on the money, while ostinmontana is still pointing blame at the police department. "a shot in the dark" as you refer to can also known as "fresh pursuit". The officer obviously was following something that led him there.

Wade's parents complain that he was mistreated as he was arrested. I wonder how the three victims felt as they lie there on the road without shoes and losing conciseness. I wonder if they thought they were mistreated.

Hide behind your version of the constitution all you want ostinmontana, I wonder how you would feel if your child was hit by the truck.

and whnindbtnt, what are you confused about? Did those three teens deserve to be hit by a truck since it was after midnight? Did they being out after midnight cause Wade to run them over? "

butteforme wrote on Jul 30, 2008 10:40 AM:

" I know Belke is only doing his job but I would think at this point it would be in his clients best interests to be looking for a deal. The entire state is aware of Mariah's Challenge where could they possibly change the venue to. The issue is not whether the police made a mistake or not, the issue is Petersen choose to drink then drive, killed someone, tried to play it off that he hit a deer and then hid at mom and dads. I have taught my childern to be accountable for the good and the bad. "

bettylou wrote on Jul 30, 2008 10:16 AM:

" The officer that received the DUI was an "Ed" with a different last name. You should check your facts before you just start spewing things. This is painful and difficult to watch, however it is all due process and it is better to let Mr. Petersen have all his days in court now, rather than risk mistrial or reversal on appeal. I am curious as to why some people are so quick to automatically blame the police and assume they messed up the investigation. I bet there is the same percentage of really good cops and less than great cops in every community. It seems like lots of people who wound up on the wrong side of the law and have an ax to grind. "

whnindbtpnt wrote on Jul 30, 2008 9:44 AM:

" Im still confused as to why the 3 teens were out walking after midnight. "

ostinmontana wrote on Jul 30, 2008 9:18 AM:

" Belke and his other lawyer are doing their job: To ensure that Mr. Peterson's constitutional rights were upheld and that he gets a receives trial.

The Butte Police Department will be to blame if any evidence is suppressed. Unfortunately, the Butte Police are well known for conducting improper searches and arrests and for ignoring criminals' CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS.

Here, Officer Moore admitted it was a "shot in the dark" to go down the driveway. Our CONSTITUTION requires probable cause for arrest--a "shot in the dark" is not probable cause or the reasonable suspicion required for an officer to enter private property for arrest. If evidence is suppresed, it will be because of the follies of our Police Department. "

soccermom wrote on Jul 30, 2008 9:18 AM:

" wayouttabutte - This is not a mess that was created by the BPD. This mess is caused by an incompetent lawyer in a hail mary attempt to free his client. Belke is wasting time and $$ on this claim.

butteforme - i agree with you. EVERYONE including he and his parents knows that he killed this young lady then left her to die. If he was any man at all, he would stand up and take his medicine. "

Astro wrote on Jul 30, 2008 9:12 AM:

" Peterson must have drank often if his parents couldn't tell that he was drinking and had a BAC 5 hours later that showed he was wasted.... "

blogger wrote on Jul 30, 2008 8:46 AM:

" Everybody calm down and take a breath. Defense Attorneys have to do things like this when their clients are guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. They can be sued for ineffective council if they do nothing.

This case will go to trial, the cops did their jobs correctly. Someday Wade Pedersen may grab a set and admit what he did.

Maybe if he had a boot in his rear a long time ago, we wouldn't have to be on this site now arguing about who is to blame.

butteforme is right on the money. I couldn't have written it better myself.

outtabutte and wayouttabutte are way outta touch. You might want to get your facts right before you start throwing names or blame.

wayouttabutte writes that the "cops are to balme for this mess". What mess? this is a good case, and the defense are doing their best with the smoke and mirrors routine.

Wade did it, he knows he did it, his folks know he did it, everyone knows he did it (even his attorneys). "

grady59 wrote on Jul 30, 2008 8:32 AM:

" GEEZ wayouttabutte (nice adding the way), you tricked us. I hope you are never on a jury. All you read is this one little piece of incomplete information from the paper and you already assume that you have the entire story. Even if you had followed all the media on this case from day one and went to every court hearing you still wouldn't have all the facts. Thats why the police and county attorney don't release all the information, so that they can do a little thing called an "INVESTIGATION".

If you and your alter ego outtabutte want to play poker sometime let me know, youd both be easy money as gullible as you are. "

goldtooth wrote on Jul 30, 2008 8:26 AM:

" I agree that Petersen did wrong when he drove drunk. But he is entitled to a fair trial. It's the cornerstone of our legal system.

And as for those of you who wanna blame Belke for this crime, you need to think long and hard about what you would want if you were in Petersen's position. And what you would want is a fair trial, and an attorney who could make sure that you got it. Period.

And to those of you who say that you never would be, or have been in Petersen's shoes, I say bobbycock! I've lived in Butte more than 20 years, and the culture of drinking and driving in this town is outrageous. I did it in my younger years before I wised up, and I bet the vast majority of us have gotten behind the wheel at least once in our lives while tipsy. And for most people two drinks is all it takes to break the law.

So, let's drop the hypocrisy and start trying to change the culture in this town of ours, instead of blaming a lawyer for otherwise doing his job. "

grady59 wrote on Jul 30, 2008 8:23 AM:

" Wow! I guess police are the only profession who ever make mistakes; keep in mind, the defense is saying that the police made a mistake, that doesnt mean that they did. Thats what defense lawyers do...place blame on everyone but their clients. How many of us in our given professions are scrutinized in the paper as the police are? The police have minutes (sometimes seconds) to make a decision, while a defense lawyer can spend 4 to 5 months picking the flys*%$ out of the pepper.

outtabutte, you may want to get your facts together before you start throwing your CSIesque ideas out there. Ed Lester is not the person that you are referring to, yet you throw his name out there without a care in the world.

The fact that people like you are allowed to write in makes me go hmmmmmm.

Weather or not there is a change of venue, the man will get a fair trial. He's never once denied what he did; now he has a high priced lawyer in Greg Jackson (professional pepper picker) to point the finger at anyone but Pedersen. "

butteforme wrote on Jul 30, 2008 7:41 AM:

" He did it, he knows he did it, have some b...s, act like a man and own up to what you did. I have no respect for Belke. How can he defend a man he knows killed someone and then tries to play it off as hitting a dear. Belke is no better than Peterson. "

wayouttabutte wrote on Jul 30, 2008 6:26 AM:

" If this guy gets off I blame no one, but the Butte police department for once again showing their incompetence in not following simple procedure. The defense attorneys are just doing their job. Like it or not the cops are to blame for this mess. "

outtabutte wrote on Jul 30, 2008 6:12 AM:

" Yes it should MATTER if they arrested him properly. If they violated the rules of search and seizure or any of his CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS the LAW says the evidence must be thrown out! Just because he is accused of commiting a crime does not meant that the Butte Police can toss everything out the window and break the laws to get a conviction.
Lt. Ed Lester said Petersen admitted to him that he had been drinking the night of the fatal crash. Let this guy get a fair trial if he is found guilty so be it but he is still entitled to a FAIR TRIAL, which he can not get in Butte I see a change of venue coming. "

MTWyld2006 wrote on Jul 30, 2008 5:34 AM:

" Why bother with such BS!! Gotta love the defense lawyers don't ya! At this point, it shouldn't matter how or what or why he was caught, he killed a 14 year old girl. He KILLED her! Who gives a rat's behind of whether or not the officers arrested him properly...should not matter. This shouldn't even be dragging on this long... "

you called someone an idiot, a racist, a dope, a moron, etc. Please, no name-calling or profanity (or veiled profanity -- #$%^&*).

you rambled, failed to stay on topic or exhibited troll-like behavior intended to hijack the discussion at hand.

YOU SHOUTED YOUR COMMENT IN ALL CAPS. This is hard to read and annoys readers.

you have issues with a business. Have a bad meal? Feel you were overcharged at the store? New car is a lemon? Contact the business directly with your customer service concerns.

you believe the newspaper's coverage is unfair. It would be better to write the editor at editor@mtstandard.com, or call Editor Gerry O'Brien at 496-5513 or Opinion Editor Roberta Stauffer at 496-5514. This is a forum for community discussion, not for media criticism. We'd rather address your concerns directly.

you included an e-mail address or phone number, pretended to be someone you aren't or offered a comment that makes no sense.

you accused someone of a crime or assigned guilt or punishment to someone suspected of a crime.

your comment is in really poor taste.
The Montana Standard reserves the right to remove comments considered inappropriate for the community forum.

Suppression of evidence sought

By John Grant Emeigh - 07/30/2008

Ads by Yahoo!

Obama Urges Homeowners to Refinance

Online Degrees

Obama Wants You to Return to School