Pantagraph.com | News | Closing arguments to be Monday in Pelo case

Note: All views and opinions expressed in reader comments are solely those of the individual submitting the comment, and not those of the Pantagraph or its staff.

myself wrote on Jun 17, 2008 6:30 PM:

" Yes you do sign up for jury duty. When you register to vote you sign your name. Therefore you sign up. If you you don't want to be considered for jury duty, don't register to vote. "

One Love wrote on Jun 16, 2008 8:24 AM:

" Bush IQ, Well next time I will just insert a "duh". It sounds so much more intellegent than merely mistyping a word. Are you serious? You must be a fairly sad person. For that, I am sorry. "

ktlin wrote on Jun 16, 2008 7:23 AM:

" to missterious: Actually studies show that juries tend to believe eye witness testimony but eye witness testimony is frequently wrong! "

ktlin wrote on Jun 16, 2008 7:20 AM:

" also: regarding shirt I wish they had asked what color that shirt was. Maybe they did but I didn't hear that part. If you remember the words you would remember the color. "

ktlin wrote on Jun 16, 2008 7:18 AM:

" Keep in mind that the victims would have seen him before and after the rape so then the issue then becomes important. I think it is important that she mentioned it at all. And I don't believe that the code of silence would come into play here. In fact I wonder if there was conflict to begin with at the police station. Has anyone thought of that. Sort of a reverse code of silence? One way or another I hope they have enough evidence to point to a conviction. If not they need to say he is innocence. And of course then he would need to get a new job since that one has been virtually destroyed whether innocent or not. I think it is sad that there apparently wasn't more evidence to begin with. I keep thinking of that England shirt when his said London and he had made trip to England. That sounds a little fishy to me. Too fishy and too coincidental. Either it said London or England. Which was it? "

One Love wrote on Jun 16, 2008 6:49 AM:

" Bush IQ, Next time you want to correct someone for mistyping, lose the duh. I thought you were smarter than that. Disappointing. "

bushIQis6 wrote on Jun 15, 2008 6:25 AM:

" Onelove: excuse me....if you're going to use big words, use them correctly. the nine victims didn't"collaborate" what the victim saw, they "corroborate". duh.... "

The Peanut Gallery wrote on Jun 15, 2008 5:16 AM:

" We will all be better off when the Jury decides the merits of the case; and the Pantagraph will end its sensationalistic coverage of the trial. However the case is resolved, it will be a sad day for Bloomington-Normal. If he is convicted, it means that a Police Detective has abused his office terribly. If he is acquitted, it means that a man has been held for 2 years - and his life, effectively, destroyed - with inadequate evidence. "

One Love wrote on Jun 13, 2008 8:33 AM:

" MISSterious~ Yes I remember, however again my point is this: Why is the defense so quick to latch onto her memory with this and run with it....but completely discount her memory of seeing the man around her home, along with at least NINE other witnesses who collaborate what she saw? NOT TO MENTION she is only one of many women saying the same thing. Some of them never had contact with Pelo a day in their life, so picking him as the person in a line up is a very BIG thing for me. I will listen to the mass before one statement made after a completely traumatic experience. I mean no disrespect either, it is just not in me to try and find loopholes and discount victims, especially when he is accused by many, not just one person. "

Luckydog wrote on Jun 13, 2008 12:13 AM:

" To MISSterious: NO it caused doubt in their minds. DUH. "

Luckydog wrote on Jun 13, 2008 12:02 AM:

" It raises 'doubt' which is what can win a case, even when the person is guilty. The "golden ticket" "

MISSterious wrote on Jun 12, 2008 4:54 PM:

" Hey Pantagraph, what the heck? I wasn't even BORN in 1969, and the comments under my moniker are comments made by another poster! "

MISSterious wrote on Jun 12, 2008 4:53 PM:

" OneLove: Respectfully, I think you misunderstood what I meant by my comment. I believe all statements made by victims and witnesses should be taken into account, therefore, how do you know which statements to dismiss and which ones to take seriously? The "foreskin" thing was also a victim's statement, remember? That was my only objection. I also highly doubt BPD would coerce anyone into making statements, please don't take my comments to mean that. I meant no disrespect. "

MISSterious wrote on Jun 12, 2008 11:46 AM:

" One love: why would you take a victim's account over foreskin? Especially if a victim's account is that her attacker had none? That makes no sense. Besides, voice overs aren't exact. I'm not saying the guy is innocent, but people are placing way too much importance on the victim's "word", while ignoring that one of the victim's "word" was wrong. "

MISSterious wrote on Jun 12, 2008 11:44 AM:

" LuckyDog: Pelo not being circumcised only poked holes in the case of ONE of the victims, not all. And what victim would make such a definitive statement if she wasn't pretty sure her attacker was circumcised? Anyways, there was only one witness that described her attacker as being circumcised with leaves reasonable doubt on that case ONLY. That is why those two charges were thrown out. His being circumcised has nothing to do with the other victims, because no other victim stated whether he was or not. Which is why the remaining charges still stand. Calm down..... "

survivor of a recent assault wrote on Jun 12, 2008 10:56 AM:

" I would just like to say that it looks like the majority of people leaving comments on here have a case of what's called the "CSI effect!" DNA evidence is not used as much in real life cases as it is on TV. I seriously think the state presented a great case with what they had to work with. A cop that commits a crime (or multiple crimes in this case) is not going to be so stupid as to leave "hard" evidence of any kind...he knows how the system works. Unfortunately this case was held in McLean County, which does not have a very good record for convicting rapists...even when there is strong circumstantial evidence (as in this case). "

jw75 wrote on Jun 12, 2008 10:02 AM:

" seems to me theres an awfull lot of penis experts on the coments. they must of had a lot of experence. "

Sweetcheeks wrote on Jun 12, 2008 8:29 AM:

" Luckydog, you do not know what you are talking about. "

One Love wrote on Jun 12, 2008 8:24 AM:

" He is still charged with assaulting the women and as far as I can tell the dropped charges have nothing to do with the circumcision issue. It continues to slay me that people think a cop would leave DNA behind. I would personally take a victim's person and voice ID over whether or not the man had foreskin!!! "

jojo wrote on Jun 12, 2008 7:45 AM:

" If I were the victim (and I was once) I might not be able to say whether or not the rapist had been circumcised. That, to me, wouldn't be the smoking gun that everyone seems to think it is. The victim that said he had been circumcised may have thought that the police would not take her seriously if she didn't know for sure, so she just said yes because she thought that most men are. Or, maybe she just couldn't tell in her state of terror and thought that he was. Perhaps, she was raped by someone else, but that doesn't prove that officer Pelo didn't rape and stalk the others. That might just throw some of the charges against him.
Maybe the defenses lack of defense is a strategy that will allow a mistrial or appeal in the future. (Cynical thinking, I know, but...) "

BIRTHDAY GIRL wrote on Jun 12, 2008 6:22 AM:

" There may not be DNA, but the state's case is far from weak. "

110100100 wrote on Jun 11, 2008 9:37 PM:

" wow, i'm honestly stunned. the defense presented their entire case in an hour? and only 4 witnesses!? do they think the state's case is that weak? "

world's smallest violin wrote on Jun 11, 2008 9:20 PM:

" lucky dog,what are you trying to say? The DA brought the whole circumcised thing into court and insisted on Jeff being examined. Trying to discredit his wife. And it blew up in their face. "

One Love wrote on Jun 11, 2008 9:14 PM:

" We'll see if the jury, who have heard ALL of the testimony and have seen ALL of the evidence will agree that Mr. Pelo is innocent. "

world's smallest violin wrote on Jun 11, 2008 8:35 PM:

" As far as the cat hair is concerned. The animal DNA expert testified that the hair in question would be a match for 18% of the cat population. That's 18 cats out os 100. A very big percentage . There are hundreds of cats,if not thousands in this area that would match that DNA profile. If that's the only DNA evidence that the DA could link Jeff to the crime. The DA doesn't have a leg to stand on. "

concerned1 wrote on Jun 11, 2008 7:38 PM:

" wow - all of you speculating about the circumision!! Fact is that Pelo is NOT circumcised and victim stated rapist IS circumcised. Can't be the same person. Judge dismissed two counts - still 33 more to go. But with NO DNA or fingerprints, doesn't look good for the prosecution. And Mrs. Pelo having read some reports ? Big deal! She could probably tell what was fact and what was BS better than anyone on the BPD. "

GoBirds2009 wrote on Jun 11, 2008 7:37 PM:

" I find it interesting with this being a rape case that the prosecution has yet to come forward without any DNA evidence against Pelo. It is also surprising that a majority of the prosecutions case has come in the form of eyewitness testimony. The kind of evidence that has been brought forward just does not seem to be enough to prosecute someone on twenty or more counts of rape. The only sustainable evidence is the cat hair, and does anyone know if cat hair can be plausibly used to convict someone? Personally i think that this case has become very political, whether or not Pelo is guilty. Another thing i find very interesting is that the judge did not allow the defense to bring in an expert on eyewitness testimony. Where would this trial be if the expert had been allowed? I hope that the jury looks at this information when they are deliberating, otherwise woops it looks like we would have put another innocent man in our cramped prison system. "

110100100 wrote on Jun 11, 2008 5:30 PM:

" Wow, the defense closed their case already? Did I read that wrong? "

MISSterious wrote on Jun 11, 2008 4:34 PM:

" Political heretic: Well, I've actually often wondered if, when a person is charged with multiple offenses of the same crime, such as a bunch of bank robberies, the investigators bunch them all together and pin it on one person because it makes sense at the time, and ties up their open cases like a nice little present for the prosecutors. "

MISSterious wrote on Jun 11, 2008 4:31 PM:

" Jester: it's not necessarily odd that she'd have seen his case files. It's not uncommon for police officers (in a good marriage) to talk to their wives about cases they are on and even ask for their thoughts on certain matters, to put thing in to perspective or whatever. "

wesley wrote on Jun 11, 2008 4:29 PM:

" If the prosecution cannot prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt then the jurors have to decide the verdict. But that does not mean that the defendant is guilty or innocent. It means that the state couldn't prove the case. "

bushIQis6 wrote on Jun 11, 2008 4:29 PM:

" who cares whether circumcised or not? The point is: the victim was so certain that she testified it was circumcised. If she was not certain, she should have said so. She is under oath. this is a serious rape trial. A witness should not be guessing from the stand. I have to believe that this victim was absolutely certain her attacker was circumcised and unless I've missed it, no where in the articles is it indicated whether the victim made this observation when he had a woody or was without it. "

MISSterious wrote on Jun 11, 2008 4:23 PM:

" Political Heretic: then why would the victim make that statement to the Police if she didn't know for sure? The point is: To be convicted of a charge, the burden of proof is on the State - to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. The discrepancy in her description of her attacker's, um, hoo-hoo, and the reality of the defendant not being circumcised provides reasonable doubt in her case. In fact, the discrepancy opens up the possibility of her being attacked by someone else. Any Judge who knows the true nature of their job, knows this raises all sorts of questions on the probability of THIS defendant being the attacker of THAT victim. That's not to say he isn't the rapist of the other victims. In fact things don't look too good for Pelo. All the evidence they DO have, plus the remaining victims' accounts, are pretty convincing that Pelo is their guy - for those crimes. But of course, that is just my humble opinion. "

isabelle wrote on Jun 11, 2008 4:05 PM:

" JimmyChoo, your husband might not like that idea!! ;) "

charlie wrote on Jun 11, 2008 3:53 PM:

" ***May 28 - Bloomington man acquitted of rape charges.
People do get charged with crimes, then acquitted. Why? Because there wasn't enough evidence to begin with, or maybe they didn't really do it. "

jw75 wrote on Jun 11, 2008 3:46 PM:

" SEEMS TO ME THESE PEOPLE MAKING COMENTS SHOULD HAVE BEEN LAWYERS. "

isabelle wrote on Jun 11, 2008 3:34 PM:

" BackfromGAafter5yrsSameB-N, I have to agree with you. Although my penis experience is limited since I personally lack one, I have noticed limited differences between circumsized and uncircumsized when erect. Of course the difference when flaccid is obvious! "

JimmyChooGirl wrote on Jun 11, 2008 3:34 PM:

" BackfromGA - Wanna go find a couple of guys (one circumsized, one not ) and try out the side by side theory? *L* Sorry. :) "

nic wrote on Jun 11, 2008 3:29 PM:

" I would have to agree with BackfromGA. I have also had experience with both circumcised and uncircumcised and I don't think that there's a noticible difference when erect. Especially considering the circumstances. If the victim has never seen an uncircumcised penis while erect to know that the foreskin isn't obvious, I can see why she would think he was circumcised. "

BackfromGAafter5yrsSameB-N wrote on Jun 11, 2008 2:51 PM:

" justme2: You did research? Wow. Having personally seen both circumcised and uncircumcised penises, it is my opinion that there is not a big difference in the appearance of the two when erect. I do not wear glasses or contacts. I am not vision impaired. Then again, I did not have both types side by side for comparison. There was a definite lapse in time between the experiences. Still, I have an excellent memory and, although every penis is unique, I found no general differences between those that were circumcised and those that were not (when erect). This is just my personal experience. "

Political Heretic wrote on Jun 11, 2008 2:39 PM:

" To hmmmmm.

You said:
"Political Heretic, what if there was no other evidence that connected Pelo to the sexual assault from Jan. 26? What if that was one of the victims that made no identification whatsoever? And if the only connection was that the manner of the crime was similar?"

If any of these three premises are true, what the heck is Pelo being charge with THAT crime in the first place? No, I'm afraid I can't believe they would charge him in such a thin evidence. Not a cop, anyway.

As for whether I accused a judge of improper behavior...I believe I was asking for more information while expressing my general impression. Big difference. "

McLovin It wrote on Jun 11, 2008 2:39 PM:

" Once again, Political Heretic never misses a change to bash and defame the police. He says he's "anti-corruption" but that's not always the case. Trust me, Judge Frietag is not going to jeopardize his credibility and/or livlihood for a former officer accused of multiple felonies. "

dc1995 wrote on Jun 11, 2008 2:17 PM:

" Let's not forget there were 23 charges from the January 26th attack alone. It's not like he was acquitted entirely of that rape. There are still 21 charges remaining just from that one date. "

hmmmmm wrote on Jun 11, 2008 1:47 PM:

" Political Heretic, what if there was no other evidence that connected Pelo to the sexual assault from Jan. 26? What if that was one of the victims that made no identification whatsoever? And if the only connection was that the manner of the crime was similar? If so, that hardly seems like "beyond a reasonable" doubt to me. And certainly not enough to accuse the judge of doing anything improper. "

justme2 wrote on Jun 11, 2008 1:42 PM:

" I did research, not having any experience with the different between circumcised and uncircumsised, and according to what I have read - in many different reports, there is noticeable difference between the two, even during intercourse. So, I'm unsure how people come to the conclusion that you can't tell the difference when erect.

Again, I don't know much about this, but there has to be a reason that the charges were dropped. I'm sure the physicians and urologoist can tell the courts the exact difference and so forth.

Then again, maybe the person who was raped actually saw the penis and could tell the difference? none of were there, so we could not possibly know. "

bushIQis6 wrote on Jun 11, 2008 1:33 PM:

" thero: where did you get your legal education? the prosectution need only prove beyond a reasonable doubt, not a shadow of a doubt. duh. "

honest1 wrote on Jun 11, 2008 1:28 PM:

" You would care about a case like this if you had come in contact with the victims! I myself personally have had to help those who have been raped and beaten. It is truly a horrific thing to go through! I have cried and cried with many of those women. Hopefully justice will be served and they will find out for sure who did these horrible crimes to these women! "

heidisilver wrote on Jun 11, 2008 1:10 PM:

" amen political heretic "

thero wrote on Jun 11, 2008 12:56 PM:

" Political, it's pretty simple really. Jeff Pelo is 100% innocent...that is of course unless the state is able to PROVE beyond a shadow of a doubt that he is in fact guilty. It just so happens with these two charges the testimony of the witness and all available evidence presented by the state could not provide sufficient evidence to support the charges. Don't worry though, he has a LONG way to go before this is over. "

bngurl wrote on Jun 11, 2008 12:53 PM:

" I am so sick of seeing this stuff on here. Who cares? I don't care about this trial. "

BIRTHDAY GIRL wrote on Jun 11, 2008 12:48 PM:

" Yes, these non deatiled stories are very irritating. Unbelievable, but I will not be surprised if a few points in this article are not correct. "

Political Heretic wrote on Jun 11, 2008 12:29 PM:

" Not sufficient evidence?!? Maybe I don't know the details, but I cannot help but think these two charges are being dismissed because of the circumcision question. However, as many have pointed out, you can't tell the difference when erect, especially if you are in a distraught state of mind due to being raped. Hopefully, Freitag has better reasons than this, because from the outside it appears that the Blue Code of Silence extends to the courtroom too. "

Ads by Yahoo!

Online Degrees

Weekly New Car Bargains

See Today's Mortgage Rates