Wrongly Convicted? Both Sides of the Story
Case #15 Michael Peterson
( Kathleen Hunt Atwater Peterson murder case)
Fact Based Reporting by
Rob Roman
(1 ) (Introduce the accused and the victim. Give a brief and objective synopsis of the crime)
Michael Peterson was an officer in the Marines, a famous author, and a socialite in Durham, NC. His second marriage was to
Kathleen Atwater, a successful executive from the Nortel Networks Company.
December 9th, 2001, at 2:30 AM, police receive a call that Kathleen Peterson had fallen down the stairs. The story was that she had mixed alcohol and prescription pills. Problem: there was blood at lots of places up the stairs and blood on the soles of her feet. There was a large blood smudge on the inside of the front door. These things don’t happen with a fall down a long flight of stairs.
Also, Michael Peterson had been caught lying about a series of medals he won in the Vietnam War. Two purple hearts and a silver and bronze star that he did not win. Kathleen’s toxicology reports showed no alcohol or drug use of any significance, although Michael kept telling that story more and more. There were financial difficulties in the home, the marriage had drifted, and Michael Peterson was spending lots of time on the internet communicating with gay men.
When you fall down the stairs, you are usually injured randomly, all over the body or in the same places at the same orientation. Kathleen had seven massive blows to the head. Dr. Henry Lee on the defense side, said the blood spatter was consistent with a fall down the stairs. Mike Nifong, for the prosecution, said this death was highly suspicious.
Later it was discovered that Elizabeth Ratliff, a friend of the Peterson family, had also died at the foot of her stairs in Germany in 1985. Michael Peterson was the last person to see her alive.
(4) (pre-trial, trial, and post-trial facts)
There was a life insurance policy in Kathleen’s name for around $1,800,000. Did Kathleen discover Michael’s fascination with gay porn, gay websites and gay escorts, and confront him with it? Did Michael and Kathleen have a bitter fight after which Michael just snapped? Or is this entirely something else?
Just because is was not a staircase fall, does not automatically make it a murder by Michael Peterson. A new theory was advanced by an attorney and neighbor that it could have been an owl attack. The idea goes like this – Kathleen could have been outside by floodlights.
An owl could have seen light reflected in Kathleen’s glasses and descended on her. The owl could then have gotten entangled in her hair and tried to claw it’s way out. Kathleen then could have gone into the house via the kitchen or main door. She would then go for the stairs, thinking Michael was up there. She collapses at the foot of the stairs, gets up and falls down several times, creating the blood spatter we see at the crime scene.
Injuries to Kathleen’s face and the back of her head certainly appear similar to an owl attack. There are two separate tracts of injuries and indications of the front claws. Further, Kathleen was found with three very small feathers on her body, including one in a clump of her hair found in her hand.
Will the defense go with the owl attack defense, the staircase fall / accident defense, a new intruder defense, or the anything but Michael defense? We will have to wait and see.
Looking at the evidence produced at trial, it becomes pretty clear, in my opinion, that this was not an accidental fall. Blood spatter is actually going up the stairs. There was blood spatter on a hanging picture high up at the base of the stairs. Normally in a staircase fall, there would be blood pooling around and under the body, not on top of the body as in this case.
More damning than that, it has been shown that the blood on the wall at the bottom of the staircase was wiped down, then fresh spatter appeared on top of it. The crime scene had been tampered with. Even more damning, Michael’s shorts have blood spatter on them. You do not get blood spatter on your clothes unless you are right there when the blood spatter is happening.
There was also testimony about red neurons found in the brain. This indicated that the victim suffered a prolonged period of blood loss while still alive, a minimum of 45 minutes up to 2 hours. This meant that what happened to Kathleen Peterson happened 45 minutes to two hours before Michael Peterson called the police.
Michael Peterson’s first story that he followed Kathleen inside the house after turning off the pool lights, then changed to being outside at the pool for 45 minutes, smoking a cigar, after Kathleen went inside.
Dr. Henry Lee, the famous blood evidence investigator, was called in by the defense. Dr. Lee testified that the blood spatter was in fact consistent with a fall down the stairs. But keep in mind that Dr. Lee’s testimony is confined to just the blood spatter, not the blood pools, or how long the body had been there or the orientation of the body or anything else. Dr. Lee thought that the blood spatter could be caused by the victim coughing up blood.
A giant piece of evidence: there was a bloody footprint found on the back of Kathleen’s leg beneath her. How does this happen in an accident?
Michael claimed he was out by the pool when this all happened, as far away as you could get in that house. Would he be out at the pool at 2:30 am? Would Kathleen be outside or just going upstairs to bed at that time? She had an important meeting the next morning. The state of the body and dried blood suggested that this happened much earlier. It also appears that Kathleen suffered for over an hour. Yet, Michael’s emergency phone call sounds very realistic, emotional, and heart-wrenching.
Then,there is the matter of Elizabeth Ratliff, a friend of the family when Michael Peterson was married to his first wife, Patricia Sue Peterson. Elizabeth’s husband died and she and her two children became very close with Micheal and Patricia Sue and their two children. Michael’s first marriage started going sour. In 1985, Elizabeth Ratliff was found dead at the bottom of her staircase. Michael Peterson was the last to see her alive. It’s fairly certain that this was an accident, however, but would this give Michael Peterson the idea to stage this as a staircase fall after the fact?
Another thing is a character issue. Michael was an officer in the Marines during the Vietnam war. After a year in combat, he was transferred to France as part of the military police where he was side-swiped by a car. Years later, Peterson professed to have been wounded by shrapnel in Vietnam and to have won a bronze star, a silver star with clusters, and two purple hearts. Michael then wrote a series of novels about the Vietnam war. The problem was, according to military records, Peterson was never awarded these medals nor wounded in combat.
All of these factors will be in play during a new trial.
(5) What has changed?
The conviction has been reversed on appeal. One of the blood experts for the prosecution was found to have given false and misleading information in testimony. A new trial is pending.
(6) (What could or should happen in the case?)
In my opinion, they have the right man for the right crime. Peterson seems to be in the same class as Scott Peterson, Shawna Forde, and Jodi Arias. All are capable of possibly winning a reversal and a new trial, but can any of them prevail? My answer is “no”. Michael Peterson will be found guilty again, and he will go back to prison. Michael Peterson has refused to make any deal with the state that includes any further prison time.
After 8 years in prison since his conviction on October 10, 2003, Michael was released on bond and confined to house arrest via tracking ankle bracelet on December 16th, 2011. Later, even house arrest was rescinded. He has been awaiting a new trial, which could be coming soon.
(7) Links to best available information from Both Sides of the case:
Prosecution –
.
http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/10548122/
.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/maureen-ryan/staircase-murder-documentary-last-chance-sundance_b_2805852.html
.
http://www.peterson-staircase.com/
.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Peterson_%28murder_suspect%29
.
http://www.newsweek.com/staircase-revisits-man-convicted-murder-63375
http://vanceholmes.com/court/trial_m_peterson.html
.
Defense –
.
http://www.wral.com/mike-peterson-won-t-accept-plea-with-prison-time-attorney-says/13973444/
.
https://www.facebook.com/Free-Michael-Peterson-199068540164476/timeline/
.
http://www.wral.com/mike-peterson-gets-new-attorney-for-second-murder-trial/14109012/
.
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2011/12/14/9448435-author-michael-peterson-wins-new-trial-in-bizarre-murder-case?lite
.
.
.
(8) (Summary / Is this a wrongful conviction?)
On A Scale of 1 to 10, 10 being the highest and 1 being the lowest, the chances the defendant / convict could or should be released soon. 10.0 – He has been released since 2011.
On a scale of 1 to 10, chances that this was a wrongful conviction 1.0
(That’s right next to nothing 🙂 )
To avoid a “wrongful conviction”:
- Don’t let your marriage go sour
- Don’t profess a happy marriage, then spend days and days on the internet looking at gay porn and gay escort websites.
- Don’t call the police after your wife had been murdered and shortly thereafter, go on the internet.
- Don’t delete lots of files shortly before a family member dies.
- Do not tamper with the crime scene and possibly call the police 2 hours after the “accident” happened.
- Don’t lie about military medals you didn’t get.
All Rights Reserved
Did you get the point?
What do you think?
Comments from all viewpoints are welcome.
You can also comment on this FB page:
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Spotlight-On-Law/189870931203328
Welcome to join our discussion Group: Jodi Arias Life or Death? – It’s not just about Jodi Arias anymore!
https://www.facebook.com/groups/335173176693377/
Check my new page researching the “Wrongfully Convicted?”
https://www.facebook.com/Wrongly.Convicted.Both.Sides.of.the.Story
Follow on Twitter:
https://twitter.com/TingMingJie
spotlightonlaw 2 
One of the most disappointing analyses I’ve ever read. Like a 6th grade book report. If you are going to make giant, confident leaps in your conclusions, you have to explain how you got there. This fails, completely.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Really? Nothing like being specific and giving examples. So you think he’s innocent? No, I spelled out exactly why he’s guilty. He will be found guilty again.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Very interesting! I watched the Staircase but you have a lot of info that wasn’t included in the docu. How did you find out that Michael was on the phone when the police came, that Kathleen received an urgent call at 11, that Elizabeth Ratliff’s husband may have been poisoned by arsenic and that many files had been deleted from the peterson’s computer before Kathleen died? Really curious. I’ll be watching the new trial when it starts.
LikeLike
All this info is out there in court documents and in the articles I listed. People watch the staircase and they think they are seeing the complete picture.
One small example is Dr. Henry lee, the famous blood spatter expert that many people remember from the OJ Simpson trial.
Henry Lee was only testifying that the blood spatter found could possibly happen in an accident. Maybe in isolation this is true. Also home accidents are much more frequent than murder, so this played into Henry Lee’s analysis.
But when you add everything else in, then a home accident becomes almost impossible or just plain impossible, no matter how much you pay Dr. Henry Lee to testify.
LikeLike
“More damning than that, it has been shown that the blood on the wall at the bottom of the staircase was wiped down, then fresh spatter appeared on top of it. The crime scene had been tampered with. Even more damning, Michael’s shorts have blood spatter on them. You do not get blood spatter on your clothes unless you are right there when the blood spatter is happening.
There was also testimony about red neurons found in the brain. This indicated that the victim suffered a prolonged period of blood loss while still alive, a minimum of 45 minutes up to 2 hours. This meant that what happened to Kathleen Peterson happened 45 minutes to two hours before Michael Peterson called the police.
Michael Peterson’s first story that he followed Kathleen inside the house after turning off the pool lights, then changed to being outside at the pool for 45 minutes, smoking a cigar, after Kathleen went inside.”
-That’s the case right there. He’s guilty. Dr. Henry Lee said that the blood spatter was consistent with a fall down the stairs. Sounds good for Peterson, right? He’s a famous expert. Problem, although the spatter may be consistent, the injuries are not. Henry was ONLY reporting on the blood, and even that was a stretch.
Kyle – Your buddy, Michael Peterson doesn’t have a chance of getting a better outcome in his new trial. Peterson is a certified liar who lied about being injured in Vietnam and getting medals such as the purple heart, and then he built a writing career on it. Last person to see Liz Ratliffe also, and he caused her death. Your man is going down. It’s all over but the crying.
That means Justice will be served – unless he flees the country. 🙂
LikeLiked by 2 people
One more thing: The blood spatter was found INSIDE his shorts. This cannot happen via transfer.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’m minded to think that Peterson is guilty too -but one thought re the blood spatter on his shorts – could this have happened as Kathleen exhaled on him when he “discovered” her? He said she was unconscious but breathing at the time of the 911 call. Reminds me of a case in the UK where this happened and a guy had his conviction overturned (it had initially been determined it was evidence of cast off splatter). Also regarding Peterson’s clothing, the dark blue T shirt he was wearing didn’t have any blood, and investigators apparently dismissed early on that he didn’t change his clothes.
LikeLike
But Peterson hung up the phone when he called 911. It was shown that Peterson attempted to clean the blood off his clothes, off the stairs and off the wall. He changed his story that he was right behind Kathleen when she went back into the house after they were sitting out by the pool. It was too cold outside for shorts. When Peterson found out that Kathleen was dead a minimum of 45 minutes by the time Peterson found her, he changed his story to say he was out at the pool smoking a cigar for guess how long? 45 minutes. Also Kathleen used a computer that only Michael Peterson ever used. She needed to send an e-mail shortly before she died. On that computer were e-mails between Michael Peterson and a male prostitute who turned down Michael’s efforts to start a relationship.
LikeLike
Rob, don’t invite people to make comments good and bad and then jump down the first person to disagree with you’s throat by shooting three angry replies in quick succession.
Just a thought!
LikeLiked by 3 people
No, Emily. When a person disagrees, they need to say what they disagree with. They need to give examples and specifics. That’s not what happened. That was an insult, pure and simple. I spend a good piece of time for no compensation researching these case. I have the background and I try to be as objective as possible.
The least I expect is a respectful comment. Now, this person thought my article was grade school? Well grade school articles don’t get picked up by the National Media. I do not even know the commenter’s position after all that. I have no idea if he thinks Michael Peterson is not guilty, or guilty of a lesser charge or what. “You suck” is a comment that leaves me nothing to work with. How do I suck? Where do i suck, etc.
I guess we will have to wait until Michael’s second trial is concluded to see that I’m right on this.
I respect all opinions, but you see, Emily, that was no opinion, that was just a moronic insult.
LikeLiked by 2 people
The Peterson article was just a quick summary of the relevant evidence, not a full in-depth article. Okay, let’s look at the shorts. Let’s say that Michael came upon Kathleen some time after she had fallen. Now, you could say, he tried to pick her up, he slipped and the body fell back in her own blood, which cause the blood to spatter on Peterson’d shorts. But look at the spatter, that’s perfect little dots of blood consistent with medium to high impact blood spatter.
That’s not the shape or the size of the kind of blood spatter you would get from her body falling back into her own blood. You just can’t get spatter like that in the way Michael Peterson described.
If you understand red neurons, then you will know that this only happens when a person remains alive, not breathing well, and unattended for 45 minutes or more. So, why did Michael Peterson say he came upon Kathleen just a few minutes after she left his company and went in the house? Wow, imagine that? Now, Peterson changes his story. Now, it seems after Kathleen went back in the house, Michael stayed out and smoked a cigar – for FOURTY FIVE minutes. Imagine the coincidence, and good thing Michael dug up that memory that he just didn’t have on the night of the murder or subsequently.
But wait, there’s more…. I came up with a list of signs a suspect may be guilty. Please take a look:
I state that the more of these are true for the suspect, the greater the possibility of his / her guilt.
1 – yes, 2 – yes, 3 – yes, 4 – yes, 5 – yes, 6 – yes. 7 – yes, 8 – yes, 9 – yes. 10 – no (the death was not blamed on an outside intruder), 11 – no (outsider motive is not applicable) BUT in his new trial, I believe Michael’s defense will claim that someone else may have murdered Kathleen. 12 – no, the suspect had no unusual injuries.
LikeLiked by 1 person
You suck
LikeLiked by 2 people
I’m sorry, Clyde, this here blog is for literate people, not for you. Only people who can read and can write a complete sentence are allowed. For example, why do I suck? what do I suck, where do I suck, and how much do I suck? What an imbecile you are that you can’t express yourself any better than an ordinary toad. What exactly is the problem with the article?
Do you believe Michael Peterson is innocent. Only two things can happen with Michael Peterson: He goes back to jail or he flees the country. That’s it. After the trial, I will come back and gloat. This isn’t an opinion. These are the facts and they are undisputed.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Please review the “Signs a suspect might be guilty”, in the post above and note that Michael gets a positive on almost ALL the signs.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Clyde is obviously just trolling you. Don’t dignify it with a serious response. I personally enjoyed your article it provided substantial insight into the case and why he should be found guilty. I’m on episode 2 of the staircase and already things are looking fishy. I will say this, his 911 call is bone chilling. If he did do it he should get an academy award for that performance.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks for your comments, James. I also thought Michael’s call sounded very real and genuine. He would still be under great duress, though, after attempting to clean and all his delaying.
People who watch the Staircase can see where things just don’t fit with Michael’s story.
The article, again, is just a summary, but it does distill things down to the important facts. I’m still going to write a more in-depth article because some people do not see how I got down to these tangible facts.
I’m glad you liked it!
LikeLiked by 1 person
How has the owl feathers and related clump of hair been explained. If
it can’t be I believe that was the killer, an owl that got away. Just look
at the wounds and the owl claws. Whatever her husband’s character
is, was, is NOT proof. But trying to fight off an owl attack would cause
a disasterous scene for the victim.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thank-you for your comments, Elenore Benzoni.
In the new trial, they might try to bring up the owl defense. Problem: the blood spatter on and inside the shorts. How do you get blood spatter like that no matter what you do once you find the body?
Why does Kathleen’s time of death not coincide with Michaels’s story until after he changed it? Why did Michael constantly try to reinforce the idea that Kathleen was drunk that night?
Oh, by the way, the police found evidence that Michael poured two glasses of wine and then dumped the two glasses out and emptied the wine bottle into the kitchen sink (Only Michael’s fingerprints were found on the two wine glasses and and the empty bottle and the sink trap was full of wine.)
Kathleen had an important meeting the next day at Nortel Corp. Michael was the one who had no job. The theory is that since Kathleen got an urgent call about that meeting around 11:00 PM, she went looking for something in her e-mails, and found Michael’s communications with gay escorts.
Where was Michael when the police arrived? He was intensely involved with something on the computer. Who does that at 3 AM after their spouse has just been found bloody and motionless?
I have seen other photos of owl attacks and they do not look like Kathleen’s head. The clumps of hair and the feathers found are great evidence, but the claw shaped pattern on her head would not be made by a real claw. The lines would actually be parallel.
Sure, his character is not proof, but it is important to know that Michael was gay or at least bisexual and he had lied about major events in his life to everyone – and he built a career on his lies. The mother of his adopted children and her husband both died under mysterious circumstances. Elizabeth Ratliff, who shockingly looks astonishingly like Kathleen Peterson, fell down the stairs one night after Michael escorted her home. Elizabeth Ratliff’s husband was mysteriously poisoned with arsenic.
All these things are facts the jury will hear. How do you account for them? How do you account for the fact that Michael Peterson said he followed his wife right into the house. Then, when science says she died 45 minutes earlier than Michael said, Michael changed his story to say he was outside alone smoking a cigar for (guess how long?) 45 minutes before going inside. You need to have answers for all this, and so will Michael’s defense.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I just watched the whole documentary and I account for all of it based on this guy being a psychopath. His demeanor is so creepy and he is so obviously lying that I can’t understand why there is any question. That’s me looking at it as an outside observer. Psychopaths are experts at fooling people, and I think this guy has it down pat. Three people he was close with died under mysterious circumstances and he gained financially from all of it. No brainer in my opinion.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks for your comments, Edie.
I ran something on Peterson in a facebook group and there was no one thinking he’s innocent.
This is a guy who bought 2 purple hearts and silver and bronze star and showed them to everyone, saying he was wounded in combat. Of course, when he ran for Mayor, people started digging and easily found that Peterson had never been in combat at all.
People do not see the relationship between this behavior and what happened on December 9th.
Fortunately, you and others do see it. He may be a Psychopath who explodes when his deceptions are revealed. He’s definitely a sociopath.
LikeLiked by 1 person
This is Kathleen Peterson as a young girl. Little did she know whom she would end up with. In a chilling coincidence, look where this wedding photo is taken.
You want to blame this on an owl? That sounds real good, now, but you have to explain all the evidence and how that fits with an owl attack. On top of what I have listed in these comments, there is plain evidence that the wall and floor were partially cleaned up, then more blood spatter landed on top of the cleaned up parts. How does that fit with an owl attack, or an attack by any other than the defendant?
There needs to be justice served for this horrible crime, and that’s what we will most likely see in The 2nd trial of Michael Peterson.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’ve never seen an owl attack leave this amount of damage. Really? An Owl?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks for your comment, Debby.
There is no case that I know of where there was that much damage. It’s not enough to say the owl made some of the injuries, the owl would have to leave ALL the injuries. Say she was attacked outside by an owl, and Kathleen managed to get in the house. How can anyone account for all that blood spatter reaching up to the top of the painting on the wall? I don’t think anyone can.
Here’s the worst owl attack I could find. The rest were very bloody, but relatively light daamge.
Here’s the compelling part, besides the 3 microscopic owl feathers they found on the body and in the clump of hair in Kathleen’s hand. Look at these owl injuries:
Now, look at the injuries around Kathleen’s face and eyes:
Again, There is a compelling case, especially when you add the blood on the outside of the front door.
The problem is this:
1) Look at the floor plan I included in the article. This puts Kathleen on the other side of the house. It does not make sense for her to be their according to Michael’s story.
2) The blood on the door was cleaned off. Why would someone do that in an innocent situation?
3) The owl attack has to account for ALL the injuries and ALL the blood spatter, not just some, or it is not reasonable. The owl attack cannot account for all the injuries or the blood spatter, or Michael’s attempt to
stage the scene via partially cleaning one stair and part of the wall, and staging the wine bottle and two glasses.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hi Debby. I’m not an expert in these matters, but I do have some thoughts on the subject. Personally, I don’t believe all of her injuries have to do with the owl attack directly. There could be a combination of things going on. I’ve been assuming that she was heading up the stairs when she fainted/passed out due to blood loss/trauma and/or shock, possibly repeatedly. I’ve read about lots of owl attacks lately because I’d never heard of such a thing previous to this theory and decided to research it. Apparently, it’s not that rare when it’s breeding season. I’ve read one man describe an attack feeling as though being hit with a baseball bat and another as being hit by a 2×4 and neither of these men were attacked as severely as Kathleen, or as old as her. I’m assuming that the owl got tangled in her hair because she had clumps of hair (and feathers) in her hand, which may have made the slashes worse. There are lots of images online of owl attacks and attacking the crown of the head, from behind, seems to be common. Keep in mind that head wounds, even small ones, bleed profusely and, while she did have a low blood alcohol level, she had taken a Valium that night, and on previous nights, which will thin the blood and lead to even more blood loss.
I don’t know what happened there that night and, while I didn’t buy either side’s story of the blowpoke or the fall, I now believe that Michael is not responsible for his wife’s death because of the owl theory. Duane Deaver’s lies and incompetence were apparent from the beginning to me, although the magnitude of those lies and incompetence, as revealed recently, did shock me.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The prosecution misconduct regarding the autopsies alone gives me reasonable doubt. We’re talking about proof of a homicide. There is none. I have no idea if Peterson committed murder. But neither does the state. This emotional analysis is not a logical argument. The logical argument is that Michael Peterson is not guilty.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I don’t see how you can say that, really. Mister Sterling. As far as one witness, I would say that Michael Peterson lucked out. There was a State Bureau of Investigations (SBI) analyst named Duane Deaver, who had given bad or false testimony in 34 cases, including this one..
Deaver was way off on the stand about how many cases he had testified in and how many reports he had filed. Had Peterson’s defense team done their job, they could have easily discredited him.
“Deaver was fired from the SBI in January 2011 after an independent audit of the agency found Deaver had falsely represented evidence in 34 cases, including withholding negative results in the case of Greg Taylor, a North Carolina man who spent 17 years in prison on a murder conviction based on Deaver’s testimony.A bloodstain-analysis team that Deaver had trained was suspended and disbanded. In the 2003 Peterson trial, Deaver testified that he had been mentored by SBI bloodstain specialist David Spittle, had worked 500 bloodstain cases, written 200 reports, and testified in 60 cases. During the retrial hearing, SBI Assistant Director Eric Hooks testified that Deaver had written only 47 reports. SBI agent David Spittle testified that he could not recall mentoring Deaver who, since completing a two-day training course in the 1980s, had testified in only four cases, the Peterson case being the third. The SBI cited the bloodstain analysis given in the fourth case as the reason for firing Deaver.” – Wikipedia.
So if Michael Peterson didn’t do it, who did? The owl? Aren’t you forgetting about the bloodspatter? These experts who are saying ‘Yeah, it could have been an owl’ were not given the blood spatter testimony. How can you explain the blood spatter on and inside the leggings of Michael Peterson’s shorts? That doesn’t spell owl.
The other thing that doesn’t work is Michael told the police. ‘She went in the house and I followed her in a couple minutes later’. The emergency call came in after 2:40 AM. Problem: Kathleen Peterson had an important meeting at Nortel that Monday. Even on a Saturday night, Kathleen didn’t stay up until 2:30 AM ever. The couple had watched a movie that ended at 11:30. After that, there was some activity on the computer as Kathleen had just been on the phone with a Nortel co-worker. That’s not consistent with staying up until 2:30 AM out at the pool. Michael had placed himself as far as he could from the scene, probably to explain how he heard nothing.
So after the report came in that said that Michael following Kathleen into the house several minutes later was not possible because Kathleen had been unconscious but alive for at least 45 minutes, now Michael changed his story to him being outside smoking a cigar for 45 minutes. How could he have forgotten that?
How is it that there was an attempted clean up of the area that was then abandoned? That’s fact. Look at Kathleen’s bloody feet. She was wounded badly, but she got back up and stood in her own blood. Then there was more blood spatter on top of the cleaned areas. None of this happens with an owl attack or an attack by another person.
The blood spatter:
The best defense, in my opinion would be another intruder. I believe the owl and an accidental fall can be reasonably ruled out.
So, given all that. I don’t see how you or the defense can defend his actions. Amazing coincidence that his good friend’s wife also had a staircase death, right after Michael was the last person to see her alive.
You’re argument is not legally logical. We’ll see at the trial, but I can tell you right now where to address any letters you may want to send to him. 🙂
Thanks for your comments, Mister Sterling.
LikeLiked by 2 people
See that photo above? How many people come upon a scene like that and say, ‘Oh yeah. I better get some paper towels’ for some or other reason?
LikeLiked by 1 person
I don’t know how you can say there is a 1 in 10 chance that it is a wrongful conviction. No murder weapon, no motive. The jury deliberated for 5 days. The burden of proof is with the prosecution and the defense, in my opinion, did more than enough to show that there is beyond reasonable doubt that it was murder. Two independent forensic experts came up with different but valid scenarios that showed how it could have happened.
Also you have made so many errors in the piece it is hard to see why you are criticising Kyle’so comment. You’ve left draft headings in there and you refer to Michael as Richard a number of times. Take it on the chin bud.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks for your comments, Cam.
Those are not draft headings, this was a summary, not an in-depth article. I did say “Richard” once, as I was also working on Richard Glossip at the same time.
The thing is a comment should have some substance to it. Have you read the arguments. How could it be anything else? It was definitely not a fall down the stairs. The owl attack is a good theory, but it doesn’t fit. Another person did it? Kathleen usually goes to bed before midnight. the call cam in around 2:45 AM. Medical science says Kathleen was attacked between midnight and 2:00 AM. That’s a big problem foe Michael Peterson as is the blood spatter on his shorts, as is the frantic deletion of files from his computer and his plans to meet up with a gay prostitute.
I think you just want Michael to be not guilty, but that’s not what the facts say. So when you comment, you give no facts, then you criticize my article which had a lot of devastating facts.
I would be the first person to be on a defendant’s side if there were any possibility at all that it could have happened another way. What I’m saying is that there is no possibility of any other explanation. You don’t need a murder weapon to prove murder.
LikeLiked by 1 person
By the way you write, you make it sound as if you knew them. How else would you know they ‘never’ stayed up past 11:30? How do you know they didn’t have an arrangement regarding an open marriage, so long as discretion was used? As for being out by the pool, I’ve been known to spend late nights in my whirlpool. Yes, I was joined by a partner sometimes. Said partner worked in the corporate world & put in long hours. Perhaps that’s strange to you, but again, how do you know what exactly these people did during their down time? I personally couldn’t answer this about my own parents, so for strangers? Forget it.
If there was a pool of blood and Mike Petersen was fishing to his wife’s side & for lack of a better term, splashed in it, I can see how blood could end up inside the leg of shorts or pants. Of course, I’m nothing close to an expert in blood spatter, but I do know head wounds, even minor ones, often bleed a lot. I can give credence to the owl theory as much as anything else.
The blow poke was not the murder weapon. It was found in the garage later & there was no blood or DNA on it. Fingerprints, I believe, were only that of the family.
As far as lying, well… Look at Brian Williams. Tell a story enough & it becomes your truth. Yet Brian Williams hasn’t murdered anyone. Look at how many high profile people are outed for some like… James Frey, that reporter from (if I remember correctly) the NY Times… I don’t know that I’d base guilt on his Vietnam lies either. This case is weak—there’s nothing concrete, no murder weapon, an expert witness perjured himself & had no credentials of merit on blood spatter & that was really the only defense, save for his being bisexual, which is irrelevant.
Simply put, there’s enough reasonable doubt in this case. I don’t know if he did, I don’t know he didn’t. I don’t judge the way a person handles grief, fear, etc. because many act in what society deems ‘inappropriate’ or ‘weird.’ This doesn’t make them guilty. My life has been such that had I not lived it, it would seem like something out of a movie. Sometimes truth really is stranger than fiction.
Can I understand why some believe he’s guilty? Yes. Do I believe there’s enough actual evidence to show MP did it? No. There are enough questions that unless there’s some new major breakthrough which we’ve yet to learn, I wouldn’t hand down a verdict of premeditated murder.
Btw, for wanting a discussion, you’re not doing the best job of encouraging people to try to say much of anything… It seems you simply want to hear from those who agree with your analysis, which I personally felt, was lacking. It didn’t compell me to any new conclusions because as with the majority of so-called evidence in this case, it’s largely infused with speculation, leaving plenty of room to question the events of that night. Unfortunately, the only person who could tell us what happened can’t speak for herself.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Thanks for your comments, Jay George.
I have no problem with anyone’s views no matter what they are. I do think they should give a specific example though. What could have happened? How and why did Michael Peterson clean up the blood on one of the stairs and part of the wall, and then get more blood spatter on the cleaned parts? Why did Michael change his story? It had just happened.
The facts are that they weren’t getting along for quite a while. Why did Michael keep pushing that story about the wine mixing with her medication? Why did Michael stage an empty wine bottle and two glasses at the scene? the sink trap was full of wine. Do you know what that means? He didn’t “find” her until at least 45 minutes after she had been unconscious. That’s the minimum end of the scale. It could have been two hours and that gets us back to Kathleen’s normal bedtime.
There’s activity on the computer suggesting Kathleen was in Michael’s office looking for an e-mail. In Michael’s e-mails were e-mails from male prostitutes. Later, even as the police were there, Michael was deleting files and continuing to do something frantically on the computer.
No one said it was 1st degree. I see this as a 2nd degree murder, although it could easily be 1st degree, as it appears that Kathleen was knocked down, she got up and walked in her own blood and then was attacked again.
Do you think you get that kind of blood spatter from stamping in blood or dropping the body in blood? That pattern comes from high velocity impact from an object.
Of course Michael’s bisexuality / homosexuality and his tremendous lies about getting wounded in combat and receiving medals should not be a factor in determining guilt, but you always have to look at a person’s character.
Kathleen was supporting Michael. He hadn’t come up with any new books. They were in financial difficulty, and now Michael was working on getting seriously involved with a male prostitute. You have to look at that when you see that Kathleen and Michael (supposedly together) were watching a movie. She got a phone call. She needed to find an e-mail for an important meeting that Monday.
Computer records show someone going through e-mails. Later, Michael is deleting lots of files and he’s doing something on the computer even as the police are investigating the crime scene.
Then you have two mysterious deaths orbiting around Michael. Elizabeth Ratliff and her husband both died under strange circumstances, one “fell” down a staircase and one was poisoned with arsenic.
Yes the prosecution screwed up and the one scientist was faulty. Yes the media was prejudicial, because Michael often criticized the police and the government of his town. Yes there was no murder weapon found and yes they found ‘A’ blowpoke in the garage, but not necessarily The blowpoke or the murder weapon.
If I saw any daylight at all, I would be on the defense side. Again, I see no daylight at all, and I think the new trial will end the same way the 1st trial did, but that’s just my opinion.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Was Michael Peterson involved with Elizabeth Ratliff’s husband? George Ratliff was in the military as was Captain Peterson and stationed in Germany . in 1983, George Ratliff dies mysteriously of what could have been arsenic poisoning. In 1984, Elizabeth and her children moved close to Michael Peterson and his first wife, Patty. In 1985, Elizabeth reported having severe headaches and she made an appointment to see a Doctor.
Before she had that appointment, Michael Peterson escorted her in the rain back to her apartment, and she was found dead at the bottom of her staircase the next morning. One symptom of arsenic poisoning is headaches and dizziness. It appears that the murder weapon, if it was a murder, could have been an umbrella. The blood spatter,again, and the blood loss, were highly unusual for a staircase fall / accident. Michael and Patty adopted the Ratliff children after the second death.
The injuries on the left are Elizabeth Ratliff”s injuries, those on the right are Kathleen Peterson’s injuries. Note also the incredible resemblance to each other.
Oh, geez, there’s also the bloody footprint found on the BACK of Kathleen’s leg. Kathleen was found lying on her back. How is Michael’s defense going to explain that? Yes, I mean I can see how all these three deaths orbiting around Michael Peterson are just mere coincidences. Things happen in life, right?
LikeLike
Hello Rob,
I would be curious as to where some of your details come from, including Mr Ratliff being poisoned; that MP was on his computer when police arrived; that files had been deleted; that MP initially claimed to have followed just behind Kathleen from the pool and later changed his story that he stayed outside for some time; or that no alcohol or drugs were found in her system.
My knowledge of the case is in a large part limited to the French documentary The Staircase, as well as the followup part 2. I can see how and even why it is likely biased towards any exculpatory evidence; the audience is intrigued by cases of possibly innocent persons convicted of crimes, and the documentary questions both the prosecutions methods and the process as a whole. Nonetheless, I suggest you watch (or re-watch) the series as a number of your questions and claims are clarified or contradicted.
First, a perhaps unimportant example: the large central staircase shown in a number of your photos is not the staircase in which she was found, in case you did not realize that. In your original piece and in a number of posts you repeat that blood had been cleaned up and then new spatter landed on the same area. Dr Lee, who you seem to respect, presented a very plausible scenario in which Kathleen was scrambling and coughing blood, thus smearing the blood on the wall with her shoulder or back while continuing to cough up more blood. A second issue from the series that I found to be highly relevant was the fact that the same blood droplets which are seen to be intact in certain photos have appeared to be partially wiped away in other photos. To me this shows that crime scene was not being preserved properly during the initial investigation which–even ignoring Duane Deaver’s involvement–questions the validity of .
There are three pieces of information which you place much weight but which I fail to understand the your point: The late time at which it occurred, the spatter inside MP’s shorts and the footprint on the back of Kathleen’s pant leg. As I understood the timeline and events, Kathleen left MP by the pool and he stays by the pool for maybe an hour or so. When he goes inside, he finds Kathleen breathing but unconscious in a pool of blood. To do this I suppose he must have touched her, likely he squatted or sat near her and moved her at least enough to see if she was conscious or breathing. He then calls 911 clearly in a panic and clearly preoccupied with what I assume to be trying to revive Kathleen. That his foot might have made contact with her leg or that blood got into his shorts does not seem outlandish or implausible. Clearly my opinion, but that is what we all judge by–no matter how many time we make claims of ‘fact’.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Thanks for your comments, Che.
Uh ….. No. What I wrote were the facts of the case. The facts are not what we wish they were or what a documentary maker wants them to be. Watch “Death on the Staircase” again. What I see is the attorney getting increasingly despondent over the fact that Michael never told him about the death of Elizabeth Ratliff right after Liz told Mike she had an appointment to see a doctor about the severe headaches she was having (also a symptom of Arsenic poisoning). Funny, but she died a few days before she had that appointment.
Watch the Staircase again. Did Michael tell Attorney David Rudolf that he was bisexual or that he had a big emotional reaction over being rejected by a Gay prostitute shortly before Kathleen’s death? No he didn’t tell Rudolf any of that stuff until the Attorney found out at trial – Geez.
The idea that George Ratliff was poisoned: His death was prior to the Grenada Invasion in 1983. He was supposed to be there. He never got there because he dropped dead on the way there from Germany. Arsenic poisoning was listed as a possible cause of his death. I’m not saying that Mike Peterson did it. I’m just putting that out there as a strong possibility. What a coincidence that 3 people Michael Peterson was intimately engaged with (whether as really close friends or as a spouse) Died and all of them “accidents”. Do you know three people really close to you or anyone else who all died unnatural deaths with questionable causes? No, I didn’t think you did.
And Michael was the last person to be seen with Liz and Kathleen. Hmmm.
Michael Peterson deleted files from his computer just days before and after Kathleen’s death. That’s a fact. While the police were there investigating the death, Michael Peterson just needed to get on that computer and do ‘something’. That’s a fact of the case. He deleted a lot of files just after her death. Forensics undeleted them, though.
Michael Peterson said he followed his wife inside and was just minutes behind her when he found her at the bottom of the staircase. He later amended his story to say he was out at the pool smoking a cigar for 45 minutes before he went into the house. He changed his story after he found out that medical science says Kathleen was dead for 45 minutes at the very least before Michael came upon her body. Actually the finding was that Kathleen died two to four hours before emergency personnel showed up. Michael called at 2:40 AM on a Sunday night? Kathleen was upstairs at midnight on Michael’s computer -fact. She had to be at Nortel for work Monday Morning. She would go to bed at 11:30 to 12:30, never at 2::30 on a work night. That is also a fact of the case.
The facts of the case are undisputed.
Not true that no alcohol or drugs were found in her system. An insignificant amount was found in her system. This is in stark contrast to Mike’s insistence that Kathleen was drinking heavily while taking a drug. His story about that grew over the next few days. He told that story over and over. Two wine glasses were found with only Michael’s prints on them, not Kathleen’s. An empty bottle of wine was left there, too. The police took apart the kitchen drain trap and found it full of wine. These are the facts of the case.
I agree that the prosecution was over-zealous. Michael Peterson had been heavily critical of the government and especially the police in Durham, North Carolina. He had a newspaper column and he criticized the police often. So, he was not well liked at all by the police.
That forensic guy, Duane Deaver was a real hot mess. All the cases he testified in have to be re-tried. Maybe that’s why they have not yet set a date for the re-trial of Michael Peterson.
Yes, I am pretty thorough. I watched “Death on the Staircase” twice. I have read over 20 articles on this case as well as I read the appeal, and I have seen at least 8 documentaries, newscasts, and dramatizations of this case. There are no contradictions to the facts of the case.
The Staircase is a great documentary, but they don’t even mention a lot of the relevant facts. I came away really liking Michael Peterson. But he is a big liar and he does have a dark side and he did snap and kill his wife Kathleen. The evidence indicates he wiped her out once. She got back up and he wiped her out a second time.
There is no exculpatory evidence that I know of. If there is any, please tell us what it is? Also Where are you finding any reasonable doubt in this case? We would all like to know. I want to hear these before I prove to you all my facts.
You think I did not realize what staircase Kathleen was found at the bottom of? Did you not see the photo on the front of the article? Here it is:
See that painting at the bottom of the back staircase? That’s called the “Chat Noir” (Black Cat). Michael Peterson had that put there. Guess what picture was at the bottom of Liz Ratliff’s staircase in Germany that also got blood on it? Yes, the “Chat Noir”. Do you think Liz’s blood could reach that high from a staircase fall? Do you think Kathleen, lying on the stairs could spit blood eight feet high and get her blood on the Chat Noir?
Docka Henny Lee (sorry, I couldn’t help myself) did not get spatter on his face when he spit the ketchup, so why should Kathleen’s face and clothes have blood spatter on them? Well, Docka Henny Lee was not lying down and spitting the ketchup up onto a wall, was he? No, Dr. Lee had a nice suit on. He spat vertically.
I have to say, as much as I dislike the methods and tactics of Arizona Prosecutor Juan Martinez, he was right about something. Expert witnesses are often not supplied with all the relevant facts of the case. Their opinions are usually based on a small set of facts in isolation.
Yes, there were some wedding photos taken on the elaborate front staircase, which I found to be ironic. Kathleen’s married life with Michael began and ended on a staircase in that home.
Although you state that Kathleen could have spit out all that blood and wiped it off with her own clothes and body, her clothes do not reveal this and it’s tough to spit blood eight feet high. Also, neither a fall up and then down, or just down the staircase, or an owl attack leaves “cast off” blood on the ceiling of the hallway, which Dr. Lee conveniently ignores.
There is no evidence on Kathleen’s clothes or face indicative of a prolonged choking on blood. Dr. Lee simply took the isolated facts of the blood spatter and he said – “Accident”. He said “Could happen” “very rykry” (sorry, Dr. Lee). But he was ignoring the other facts that say, no, this was definitely no accident. He just said the blood spatter patterns could have been an accident and that was more likely to him. Well, it’s not likely and usual that a husband does this to his wife. An accident in the home IS more likely.
Kathleen did not spit up blood all over Michael’s shorts, but he did clean his shorts before the police arrived. There was a paper towel roll at the foot of the stairs, along with Michael’s shoes and Kathleen’s sandals. Doesn’t everyone whose wife has an accident take off their shoes and bring a roll of paper towels over? Of course they all do.
🙂
Dr. Lee’s scenario is plausible only in isolation from the rest of the facts of the case. This is the way in which experts deceive. Michael attempted to clean his shorts prior to the police showing up – fact. Why? One stair had been completely cleaned – fact. Why? Footprints? You do not completely clean a stair by rubbing against it with your clothes.
The foot print in blood was on the back of Kathleen’s leg, and Kathleen was found on her back. Michael said he found her that way and that’s a lie, because his footprint is on the back of her leg. Unless you want to posit an “intruder” or implicate Michael’s son, which are all possible defenses in the upcoming trial.
Michael lied to the world about being wounded in combat in Vietnam “by shrapnel” (He was hit by a car in Paris) and receiving a bronze star, a silver star with clusters, and two purple hearts He was an officer in the Army. He did not receive any of these medals – he was never in combat. But he did stay at a Holiday Inn Express and he did write a book(s) about it. Does this not strike you as odd?
I agree Michael was clearly in a panic when he called 911. Sounded totally real to me.
Really, in my mind there is only one way to get medium velocity impact spatter inside your short-legs and that’s if you are the one creating the impact and the blood spatter. Please explain a plausible way for that splatter to get inside Michael’s pants legs without Michael being the one beating Kathleen to death?
Seriously, if you explain what exculpatory evidence there is and what are your reasonable doubts about the case, I will then prove to you all the facts I have stated.
Getting back to the signs a suspect may be guilty, I fashioned this from the cases where the suspect was found to be guilty. Significantly, Micheal Peterson has a “yes” for all except 9, 11, and 12. This is highly unusual to have a “yes”for so many of these circumstances. Nine out of Twelve!
Micheal changed his story significantly – Amazing coincidences did happen – Michael’s story does not fit the evidence – Michael’s story is too complex – Michael was caught in a significant Lie – Michael’s behavior is incongruent with the death of his wife – Michael staged the scene – Michael stated he would never harm his wife – There is no plausible motive for an outsider to murder Kathleen – The suspect engaged in unusual activities around the time of the death.
Most innocent people may have zero of the above. Most guilty people have between one and three. Michael has 9 of the twelve. – oops, sorry, Michael has ten of the twelve!
I will rest my case there.
LikeLike
By the way you write, you make it sound as if you knew them. How else would you know they ‘never’ stayed up past 11:30? How do you know they didn’t have an arrangement regarding an open marriage, so long as discretion was used? As for being out by the pool, I’ve been known to spend late nights in my whirlpool. Yes, I was joined by a partner sometimes. Said partner worked in the corporate world & put in long hours. Perhaps that’s strange to you, but again, how do you know what exactly these people did during their down time? I personally couldn’t answer this about my own parents, so for strangers? Forget it.
If there was a pool of blood and Mike Petersen was fishing to his wife’s side & for lack of a better term, splashed in it, I can see how blood could end up inside the leg of shorts or pants. Of course, I’m nothing close to an expert in blood spatter, but I do know head wounds, even minor ones, often bleed a lot. I can give credence to the owl theory as much as anything else.
The blow poke was not the murder weapon. It was found in the garage later & there was no blood or DNA on it. Fingerprints, I believe, were only that of the family.
As far as lying, well… Look at Brian Williams. Tell a story enough & it becomes your truth. Yet Brian Williams hasn’t murdered anyone. Look at how many high profile people are outed for some like… James Frey, that reporter from (if I remember correctly) the NY Times… I don’t know that I’d base guilt on his Vietnam lies either. This case is weak—there’s nothing concrete, no murder weapon, an expert witness perjured himself & had no credentials of merit on blood spatter & that was really the only defense, save for his being bisexual, which is irrelevant.
Simply put, there’s enough reasonable doubt in this case. I don’t know if he did, I don’t know he didn’t. I don’t judge the way a person handles grief, fear, etc. because many act in what society deems ‘inappropriate’ or ‘weird.’ This doesn’t make them guilty. My life has been such that had I not lived it, it would seem like something out of a movie. Sometimes truth really is stranger than fiction.
Can I understand why some believe he’s guilty? Yes. Do I believe there’s enough actual evidence to show MP did it? No. There are enough questions that unless there’s some new major breakthrough which we’ve yet to learn, I wouldn’t hand down a verdict of premeditated murder.
Btw, for wanting a discussion, you’re not doing the best job of encouraging people to try to say much of anything… It seems you simply want to hear from those who agree with your analysis, which I personally felt, was lacking. It didn’t compell me to any new conclusions because as with the majority of so-called evidence in this case, it’s largely infused with speculation, leaving plenty of room to question the events of that night. Unfortunately, the only person who could tell us what happened can’t speak for herself.
LikeLike
Well, Jay George, if there is reasonable doubt, as you say, then Michael should have no problem getting an acquittal.
I don’t see it and I have laid it out pretty clearly. This was only a summary and maybe I should do a more in-depth article to show you why I see no reasonable doubt in this case.
Sure, Kathleen could have been up at 2:00 AM and out at the pool. I’m not relying on that at all. People most often have usual bedtimes and according to family members 11:30 to midnight was Kathleen’s usual bedtime. Of course you cannot rely on that when a man’s life hangs in the balance. But it all fits, and a jury is looking for a story that fits.
Did you see my list of indicators that a suspect is likely guilty of a murder?
1) Michael significantly changed his story. 2) Michael just happened to be doing something that night he had not done before – deleting a lot of files on his computer and being obsessed with the computer even after finding his wife dead. 3) Michael’s story does not fit the evidence. 4) Michael’s explanation is too complex. – can he explain how his shorts got med to high impact splatter on them? Can he explain why one stair and the wall were partially leaned and then re-splattered with blood? Do you think Kathleen collapsed, awoke and got up, started cleaning her own blood, and then collapsed again? The same goes for the owl attack,and an attack by another. They are not going to clean the scene and pour a bottle of wine down the kitchen sink. 5) Michael was caught in a major lie regarding how soon after last seeing Kathleen he came upon her body.
6) Michael’s behavior after the death is incongruent with the death. Michael had just found his wife dead, and he needs to get on that computer at 5:00 AM and get something done. 7) Michael disturbed the crime scene and staged the scene with the empty wine bottle and the two glasses neither of which had Kathleen’s prints on it. 8) Michael made a major change to his story after scientific evidence refuted his first story. 9) Michael used terminology such as ‘I would never do this to my wife’, which is something only guilty people say. #10 and #12 are N.A. 11) There is no motive for an outsider to bludgeon Kathleen to death at 2:00 AM. 13) Michael was engaging in activities he seldom engaged in. A long-term paid encounter with a male prostitute he was very interested in fell through because the prostitute was starting to get irritated with Michael’s behavior, and refused tomeet with Michael, right at the time of the death.
Also, the marriage had frozen somewhat and there were financial difficulties. Michael was earning zero and had no books on the horizon. Kathleen had cashed in all her stock options and was forced into prolonging her retirement. They were spending much more than they were taking in and the money for maintaining their habitual lifestyle had finally run out.
I will tell you many murderers will get between 1 to 3 things on this list that have a yes answer. Some have up to 5. Michael has 10 out of 13. Does this prove anything? No, but it just helps to illustrate how the idea of this being anything else than what it looks like is so remote as to be not reasonable.
Kathleen did speak for herself, the red neurons speak loud and clear.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Its great that you wrote about it… but you are pretty harsh on people man.. obviously you are passionate about this… but I wouldn’t go off on comments of people too much… even if you are right. It just makes it feel like you can’t be objective….or have dialogue… don’t take peoples views or comments personal.. if you get insulted just state facts back politely…. (like when you said to kyle “your buddy peterson” or something like that… but it’s your blog. Like your stuff..
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks, GregWilliamGiddens, but I get a little offended when I am giving solid facts, and a person’s comment is basically – “Your’e Wrong”, but they give not one fact.
I am wondering who the person is, a friend of Mike’s? Of course no one is perfect, and I would rather be wrong about saying that someone is innocent than that someone is guilty.
I re-read this article, which is really a summary, and these are not opinions, but facts of the case. Law is about the facts, not about what people hope or wish things could be. I have nothing against Michael Peterson, I think he’s a very admirable person in many respects. It would be a nightmare to be prosecuted for the murder of a loved one when you are innocent. That would really be a double tragedy.
So, you’re right, I was pretty harsh, and that was not respectful of people’s views. I agree, and I’ll try to be more diplomatic next time 🙂
LikeLike
No offense, but I feel that a good and objective writer feels confident enough in their piece that they let it do the talking for them. Your numerous long responses to each and every comment reiterating the same points over and over again seems slightly immature, defensive, and frankly a bit unprofessional. Especially the little end rants basically saying “I could be wrong, but I’m not!!! Can’t wait to say I told ya so!” Not in those words exactly, but you get the idea.
I’ve read many, many articles on this case with expert “testimony” regarding the owl theory and the additional injuries and blood spatter and pooling that were logically explained and do raise reasonable doubt in my mind as I’m sure it will in at least some of the new jurors. Bottom line is that the defense does not have the responsibility to solve the case tied up in a neat little bow for the jury explaining all the what ifs? and how comes? and who done it? All they have to do is cast a shadow of reasonable doubt for this one particular defendant, and with the right expert testimony, it very well could go either way.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks for your comments, Danielle, but I don’t see where you are getting reasonable doubt from. You never seem to mention any of the facts of the case, so I guess that helps.
Maybe you also have reasonable doubt that the world is round or that the sun rises in the east, I don’t know.
Expert testimony regarding the Owl theory? Okay, now you are making me laugh. Think about this. There were only a few drops of blood outside and None on the floor anywhere in the house. How does Kathleen get to the stairway before she starts bleeding profusely?
Will Michael’s new defense go with the “accident” theory, or the “somebody else, not me” theory or the “owl” theory? I would suggest the “any of the above theory”.
The problem with theories is that you now need to go back and plug that theory into the facts and the crime scene to see if it’s truly reasonable.
Kindly explain to me how an owl can cause this:
… and then, I will join you in saying “reasonable doubt”.
Remember the Peterson home? It’s a big house, right? The owl attack was outside, yet there is No blood found anywhere in the home except right at the stairs. Not one microscopic drop anywhere in the kitchen or the hallway?
As Robert DeNiro once said, “It cannot happen, would not happen, could not happen”.
After you can explain how all that high impact blood spatter happened from being sliced up by an owl AND the lack of blood along the path to the staircase, next, you will need to explain how an owl can attack and wound a person from the bottom of the back of their neck all the way to their eyes . nose? The “owl” that got Kathleen’s eye is a small owl with small claws.But the “owl” that attacked the back of her head must have been a large owl
That’s never happened before in the history of owl attacks.
Now when you explain all that, instead of attempting to tell me how unprofessional or immature I am, then maybe I would begin to believe you.
You read a lot of stories. That’s what they were, entertaining stories. That’s why they put the section on the owl in their articles. That’s why I put it in this article – It’s entertaining.
Your problem is that you don’t realize that I AM being objective, and I see no daylight in these facts and this crime scene for Michael Peterson.
I think the only way the jury is going to buy the owl theory is if Michael Peterson himself gets on the stand and he starts singing
“Give a Hoot! Don’t pollute! Never be a dirty bird … ” LOL!
LikeLike
Hey.
I myself am an advocate of the owl theory, until I am proved wrong, which I haven’t been yet.
Already when I saw the first pic of her injuries – the first thought that came to mind was – “how peculiar, they look just like raptor claw marks.” At that moment, I didn’t think more about that, until I saw in an article that a new theory about an owl attack, had surfaced. (I discovered the case just a while ago.)
I’m waiting for further information and investigation on the details, before I exclude that theory.
I would have wanted to see samples taken from the wounds – to detect DNA or residue from an object, etc. I’m pretty sure there would have turned up non human DNA.
What I want to ask you –
How do you explain that she had several owl feathers in her hair and hand? Where did they come from? They were intertwined in the tuft of hair – there is no other possible way for them to be there, unless they come from – an owl. It’s not like owl feathers are very frequently strewn all over the place.
I have thoughts on the blood spatter and stuff as well, but what I want to focus on here is the plausibility of the owl theory.
Í disagree completely about your deduction that the wounds don’t add up with raptor claw marks.
They do. Very obviously so.
In working as vet tech, I have seen several animals attacked by raptors – and the very specific patterns of wounds. (And VERY severe at times.) I myself have been scratched by a stressed out Goshawk brought to the clinic – unfortunately the scratches weren’t very deep, so I have no scars.
Otherwise I would have shown you that birds’ scratch marks are significantly differing from scratches made by animals with paws or feet where the digits are aligned on a broad, short foot – thus making parallell lines.
When, say, a cat scratches something – the lines will follow the bredth of the paw/foot and create linear, parallell wounds. Their claws are meant to protect/fight/keep a prey still.
A bird’s digits are aligned in a triangular shape and when the toes are contracted, they angle towards the center, thus making the individual scratches meet up towards each other, even more so when just slicing flesh, gaining no grip of deeper tissue. The thumb will also meet up from below.
A raptor’s claws are meant to impale deep, in order to ensure a firm grip that will hold the prey securely enough for the bird to fly away, carrying it. They are razor sharp, long and very powerful.
They will slice skin, hide and flesh, like a knife through butter. But they can’t fracture a human skull – this supporting the peculiar fact that there were severe wounds but no fractures.
The distance between wounds also align well with the spread of the foot of a Barred owl, which was the species accused. (A species which frequently attacks people – a relatively large owl.)
The owl theory is supported by several sources that are much more reliable than an average joe prosecutor or human doctor.
A veterinarian as well as wildlife conserve workers – that have the knowledge, that the ones finding the theory laughable, lack.
That there were so many wounds, isn’t odd either. A bird that is on a rampage won’t give up until it’s wounded or the victim takes shelter, no matter what species the bird belongs to.
Ever met a Gull defending a nest? I have. I live by the sea and us who live here know very well to avoid Gull nests – or one is in trouble. (They can peck pretty nasty holes in one’s head – still, I’d much rather have a whole flock of gulls on my trail, than a pissed off owl.)
If the owl got entangled in her hair – the probability of extensive wounds is even larger – since the bird will add fear and panic to its aggression.
The injuries on the face aren’t necessary made by the owl, they could be from falling over and hurting her face on the ground. (There has been stated that she had cedar needles on her clothes and hands?)
If you observe the locations of the facial wounds and abrasions – they would certainly be consistent with a fall resulting in impact with ground – the parts injured are the protruding parts of the face – nose, cheek bones, eyebrow ridge, teeth.
And if they are from the owl – the fact that they are very slight, could mean that it was an unsuccessful attack that time – that it barely got to her that time around.
She also has wounds to her elbows, which could indicate that they were inflicted while she was raising her arms to shield herself.
The area is frequently pestered by angry owls, and that’s the case for many regions in the US (and the world) – in many areas there are warning signs during mating season and/or if there are reportedly foul tempered individuals residing there.
As a comparison, just a ridiculous case to point out that wildlife can confuse investigators that have no knowledge –
in Sweden (where I live) – we had a case back in 2008 or so. A man called 911 in a panic, his wife had left for a walk with the dog and when she didn’t come home, he went looking.
He found her dead by the lake close to their house, covered in blood from large gaping wounds on her legs and abdomen and she seemed to have been crushed to death.
When police arrived, they gathered evidence – and arrested her husband… he was imprisoned for months, while the police were trying to figure out how the hell he killed her – their theory on that he used a mobile lawn mower, just didn’t produce the same type of wounds. But eventually, some cop had aired suspicions that something was wrong, and a special profiling group started investigating.
They run some tests that had been ignored in the beginning – and tadah – they could conclude that she had been killed by an angry moose bull on a rampage. No one had ever even thought about that possibility. City cops – no idea about anything – and they could never have imagined that a moose could cause those kinds of gaping, huge wounds. Well, they can. If they had bothered to investigate, maybe they would have had a light bulb turn on… why the heck her blouse was completely wet on the front, what those long coarse hairs found on her top, were. They just didn’t see the significance of the sticky substance and thought the hairs was from their dog. (Saliva – moose actually slobber quite a bit, especially when excited.) Also, they didn’t know that hoofs of some ungulates are extremely sharp.
When the case aired on a true crime show – it took me about 30 seconds to say “moose” – about 10 minutes before the show presented that fact. (I had never heard about the case earlier.)
Because I know wildlife.
It was september – start of mating season for moose. Dusk – their most active time.
Slobber all over her, combined with long, coarse hairs. Large gaping wounds combined with crushing injuries. Husband heard a huge splash in the water just before he reached the wife, but couldn’t see anything because of the dense shrubbery.
Obviously a moose. But the cops thought it was an old man on a lawn mower.
My point is – it’s easy to ridicule a theory if one isn’t familiar with facts that it’s based on.
So the owl theory shouldn’t be ridiculed, nor discarded, until it’s been properly investigated.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks for your comments, Bambikill.
All good points, and Michael is such a nice guy and a cultured gentleman, that I would like nothing better than to conclude it was an owl attack. I’m sure this will be the defense in the 2nd trial.
Your point is well taken that detectives are usually looking for an accident or a homicide, without ever considering animals. I recall seeing a show where a supposed murder was later found to be an animal attack. The owl theory is extremely compelling. One reason is their was a ball of her own hair in Kathleen’s hand.
Three claws cutting in a straight line will make parallel lines. It’s only when the claws are grasped together that you could see a pattern that actually looks like a claw, with the three claws converging towards the center, and the rear claw in the back center coming forward to make a “claw pattern”. But they would not converge at a single point in the center. It would be more like a ball or an island of flesh in the middle. The claws cannot grasp and cut at the same time. They either grasp or cut, but not both.
The problems with the owl theory in the Michael Peterson case are two things: The owl, and Michael Peterson.
The feathers that were found were 2 “microscopic” feathers. hardly visible to the naked eye. One only need to go outside and sit in a pool chair for “microscopic” feathers to get on the body. If there were a real struggle, one would expect more than that.
Let me show you the actual wounds on the back of Kathleen’s head from the trial:
I understand how a claw could make a wound, and the wounds on the other side could be the Owl’s other claw struggling and not getting a firm grasp. But it doesn’t appear to me to be made by an owl at all. I have looked at other owl attack injuries, and they are usually one or several straight lines.
claws cutting and dragging would leave straight, parallel lines. Claws grasping and cutting may leave a claw like pattern, but they wouldn’t intersect at a single point.
The other problem with this scenario is the blood. People that have said “yes, it could be an owl attack” have not been given the other information in the case. There are two ways in the house going into the kitchen, and another entrance is the front door, all three were entry points where Kathleen was posited to enter from. There’s not one drop of blood from those entry doors to where Kathleen was lying at the bottom of the stairs. How do you account for that?
So lack of feathers, lack of blood in the hallway or kitchen, and wounds that don’t seem to come from an owl, and remember the owl needs to make most or all of the wounds, not just some.
Now, you have Michael Peterson. People want to dismiss the lies that he told about his “war wounds” (he was hit by a car in France) and his combat medals (he didn’t receive any and he wasn’t in combat).
Michael was a Captain in the U.S. Army during the Vietnam War. He was an officer in the military and he lied about being wounded in combat and receiving medals. As good as a writer he may be, he built his career as a writer and his reputation, his very life, on a set of lies. This is important when we evaluate the relationship Michael had with Kathleen. Was he lying to her as well?
It’s very significant. He’s not lying about traffic tickets or whether he had ever been arrested before. He was bisexual and he had these affairs with men throughout the marriage. He likes to claim everyone knew about including Katherine and she was okay with that. Really? In North Carolina, do you think a person of his fame would be openly involved with college aged men? More likely, it was hidden and stealthy.So, here’s a guy who’s professional life and personal life are both based on lies.
Now when for the second time, Michael Peterson is the last person to see a woman he knows well, dead at the bottom of a staircase. Not only that, the very same picture in both incidences (The black cat or “chat noir”), was at the bottom of the staircase and was sprayed with blood.
If it was in fact an owl attack, which I would love for it to be, why was Kathleen dead for 2 to 4 hours before Michael called the police, when he said he saw her just 45 minutes before? Why did Michael take off his sneakers right near the body? What are the paper towels doing there at the foot of the stairs? Why did Michael attempt to clean the stairs, the wall, and his shorts? Why is their blood spatter on top of the wiped down wall, at the same time there’s blood on the soles of Kathleen’s feet, indicating that she got up and was struck down once more?
Michael testified that he and Kathleen ate dinner together, then watched a movie until 11:00 PM. This was Sunday Night. They both then sat outside at the pool, according to Michael. Kathleen, the only one bringing money into the house, got a call then from a Nortel co-worker about an important meeting and did Kathleen get the e-mail? Then Kathleen excused herself and went upstairs to the computer room.
A computer analysis verifies Kathleen was on the computer and looking for that e-mail at midnight. She was looking at Michael’s e-mails, e-mails with a gay prostitute Michael was corresponding with. Michael had said love was love and sex was sex. He loved Kathleen and had emotionless sex with men. But Michael’s emails and letters to this handsome gay prostitute were extremely emotional. Michael was distraught that the young man refused to meet him and enter into a regular paid relationship. The prostitute decided not to meet Michael or initiate any business because Michael was being a temperamental pest.
These are the facts of the case. They are not suppositions. What an amazing coincidence. Kathleen hardly ever used the home computer, only using her computer at work. What a coincidence that she discovered e-mails and letters from Michael’s gay prostitute on the same night she was attacked and killed by an owl?
The most important thing about these facts is that Kathleen went inside to work on the computer and never went outside again. If she did, she would only go back outside to quarrel with Michael so when could she have been alone long enough to be attacked by an owl without Michael knowing about it?
These are the reasons I think the owl theory falls flat.
LikeLike
It’s been 5 years, i thought the new trial would never happen, and this creep is getting away with murder, MURDERS!
LikeLike
I agree, Xiaomin. There is no trial scheduled at this time that I know of. Why? I have no idea. The man belongs in Prison. Definitely a Dark Side that pounced.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Anyone trying to say Michael Peterson is innocent, just remember he was an Officer in the US Army who lied to the whole world about being wounded in combat and receiving four medals for valor and for being wounded in battle. Then, he built a career on those lies. This is a person with serious problems and some loose screws. If you feel that’s something that doesn’t matter, then you can go marry him or go live in the same house as him. Good Luck to you! Ha Ha 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
Some information in your article is incorrect. The “Owl Theory” was only brought out AFTER the trial and conviction, actually it was another desperate attempt, after many and ALL ridiculous excuses been exhausted in appeals. The owl did it, they might as well blame it on the aliens. These defense “lawyers” are just downright pathetic. I label them jose-fucking-bs, good for nothing but telling lies with a straight face.
LikeLike
Yes, I knew that. The owl theory was after the conviction and it comes from Peterson’s neighbor, an attorney. His neighbor needs a lesson in reality. But who knows, they might go with the owl defense. They only need to convince one juror. It’s actually supposedly something the attorney actually believes is possible – it only needs to be a realistic possibility. Of course, you and I know that it’s impossible. The neighbor’s first mistake, and Kathleen’s, was believing this guy to begin with.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes, I just checked my article, and it is accurate. I said it was “a new theory”.
LikeLiked by 1 person
On dateline this weekend they said owl theory had been presented at time of investigation. Police had an owl “wanted” poster as a joke.
LikeLike
Thanks, Beth, and that’s very funny.
Wow, I thought that Owl Theory was way after the trial. Well, they should have put a theory up there to explain Kathleen’s horrible death, because no one anywhere has seen an “accident” like that before.
LikeLike
The staircase did it! You dont like it? Okay then, the owl did it. You must, MUST, take this one.
— The defense “lawyer” of Michael Peterson.
LikeLike
Damn it FBI, go out there find the murderous owl so mister Michael Peterson can get his good name back.
LikeLiked by 1 person
lmao. Like I said in other comments, I think an owl DID DO IT, for real. Michael Peterson was there with me saying “Whoooo, whooooo whooo me?”. Lmao.
LikeLiked by 1 person
To all of you who bought that “owl theory” crap, let me give you an idea how high up on the wall the blood spatter was found.
That “dr.” Henry Lee, granted he’s a 5’6″ midget. But in the Staircase video, this midget asshole had to stand on a chair, arms stretched out (AND, a magnifying glass in hand) to exam the blood spatters. So, how many feet? 8 feet AT LEAST!
And this asshole “doctor” had the audacity to lie down on the stair landing, demonstrating how Kathleen coughed all that blood up on the wall. IF we were to but that load of coughing shit from this “doctor”, Kathleen must have been turned into a bloody fountain to shoot all her blood 8 feet high!
Let’s not to forget this “doctor” also testified on Simpson murder trial, for the defense. That alone tells you the integrity and credibility of this “doctor”. Henry Lee is one of those courthouse prostitute “expert”, you give him the money, he will cough blood as high as you want this jerk to, he will blow any dick anything you want him to.
LikeLike
LOL, yeah you are right about that. I had a lot more respect for Henry Lee until I saw “Death on the Staircase”. Some people have no scruples whatsoever.
LikeLiked by 1 person
You had a lot more respect for Henry Lee? WOW! The first impression i got from that “expert” is his English. Or maybe it’s MY English, i just had a hard time to follow that jerk.
Then the first time I heard the name “doctor” Henry Lee was from the Simpson trial, the jerk was touted as a “renowned” expert. To many people, a piece of paper weighs a ton.
LikeLike
I did not see that Henry Lee did anything wrong or unethical in the Simpson trial. I think he became jaded and a hired gun later, when trying to make bank on his early work on blood spatter.
Remember,defense experts are merely pointing out other possibilities. In the case of Michael Peterson, an accident is a possibility, but it is not reasonable.
Dr. Henry Lee compartmentalized the case. He looked only at the blood spatter. He turned a blind eye to everything else. It’s the same with the owl theory. Could an owl kill a person? Sure. Could an owl have killed Katheen Peterson? Not possible, if you know the rest of the facts.
I will go back and look at some video of Dr. Lee (Docka Henny Lee) at the OJ trial to seeif he acted ethically.
LikeLike
Yeah, uh the Ron blue jean. I lookitt blue jean. Was definite accident there. No OJ. Bruno Magli shoes? No, I think it was Buster Brown, yes I think so. – Just Kidding.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yeah that Isabella Guzman, she no murder her mom. Definitely accident. Mom was very clumsy. She very clumsy and it was just an accident. – just kidding.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Did you read what I wrote, or did you see that scene where that Henry Lee had to stand on a chair (or stool, i dont remember exactly what, stand on a chair or stool) to exam the blood on the wall, then come down and call it “an accident”. You dont think that pipsqueak “doctor” was making shit up?
LikeLike
HAHAHA
LikeLike
Hey Rob, there’s other interesting cases, it would be great if you could shed some light on. Few names I can pull right out of my head: Geffery McDonald, JonBenet, Jeremy Bamber, Art Gonzalez, and the West Memphis Three.
LikeLike
The West Memphis three are innocent. I think it was that kid’s stepdad. JonBenet is a complete mystery, but it was not the parents. I think it’s an employee of John’s. The other three I either never heard of or I have forgotten.
LikeLike
And two more names: Fred Meuller, David Camm
LikeLike
David Camm is supposed to be not guilty. Fred Meuller? – not familiar with this one.
LikeLike
You’re obviously very passionate about this case & have done a lot of research into it, but whoa. You are so defensive, immature & condescending in the comments, & I’m sure your response to mine will be no different. I wouldn’t bother if I was you.
You are continuing to refer to ‘evidence’ in this case that disgraced SBI analyst Duane Deaver testified to. The blood spatter on the inside of shorts, the wall spatter (esp the wiped section with fresh spatter on it), the wine in the kitchen sink – all Deaver!
Deaver was found to have provided false & misleading testimony in around 3 dozen cases, hiding unfavourable test results &/or lying about his expertise, which got him fired from the SBI.
This was a circumstantial murder trial where the key expert witness perjured himself! The bias against Peterson in this case is immense. I believe him to be innocent & after my own reading & research I support the owl attack theory.
LikeLike
Thanks for your comments, bobbyj80.
I’m not defensive about anything. I’m just amazed at people who think that just because a person had an unfair trial, that somehow that means they’re innocent.
I also don’t see how a person can be both immature and condescending at the same time, since these are almost exact opposites. Also, don’t try to predetermine what a person will say and then tell them not to bother commenting. People gonna comment.
Of course your comments contain not one fact, not one reason to believe Michael Peterson is innocent. As usual.
So bobbyjo80, how many people do you know who had 3 people they were closely and intimately related with, suddenly just up and die?
That must happen all the time, eh? Maybe Michael Peterson will luck out and the state will decline to re-prosecute him.
Maybe they will re-prosecute him and lose. That can never change the fact that Michael Peterson flipped out and brutally beat his wife to death. Kathleen knows what happened and so do many other who were close to Michael Peterson. That’s all that’s really important.
Are we going to hear more from you about the owl, instead of just “owl”? What causes you to believe in the owl theory? Of course you cannot answer my question of how an owl attack is possible when there’s not one drop of blood anywhere in the kitchen or the hallway along Kathleen’s path to the stairwell.
You just don’t give a hoot, but you do want to pollute my comment section with your non-facts.
Duane Deaver was a corrupt guy and delivered false or misleading evidence in over 30 cases. Those cases all need to be retried.
You think they were all innocent people who got framed? No, the vast majority of them are guilty.
The facts of the case were delivered by a bad actor. Duane Deaver didn’t make up all those facts. He just testified to them.
Duane Deaver didn’t put the blood spatter inside Michael Peterson’s shorts, Michael Peterson did that when he was beating Kathleen to death. Duane Deaver didn’t take the wine glasses out and dump the bottle of wine down the sink after the fact, Michael did that.
That fact isn’t going to change. Duane Deaver didn’t try to clean up the wall and then beat Kathleen in the head a second time after she got up, Michael Peterson did that.
Of course, if in my mind, if there were any chance at all that Michael Peterson were innocent, I would never be saying all this. If there’s a second trial we’ll see. We’ll all see.
When the trial begins, I must go back to considering Michael Peterson innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. But for now, let’s give him what he deserves.
All trials are circumstantial except there are a few cases caught on videotape, and some juries are still confused.
If the jury were composed of just people who understand the meaning of the presence of red neurons, it would be unanimous for guilty with almost no other evidence provided.
Fortunately, people as well as police departments are getting more sophisticated when it comes to scientific / forensic evidence, and that weighs in the direction of truth and justice.
If Henry Lee decides to come in again and spit that ketchup, hopefully the next jurors are going to ask some good, probing questions.
Oh by the way, since you are such a big fan of Michael Peterson, I dug up an exclusive photo of Michael enjoying a nice camp-out and picnic with his family. I have displayed it below for your edification.
Have a nice day.
LikeLike
Not even going to bother reading your lengthy comment. People gonna comment yes. Glad you wasted your time doing so.
LikeLike
Great, you want to talk about OJ now? 🙂
LikeLike
I heard about this case for the first time tonight when I watched it on the YouTube Forensic Files page—forensic science being a “hobby” of mine in terms of watching many real life cases on Forensic Files and Body of Evidence and reading books on the subject over the years. After hearing more details about the owl theory, and thinking back to the actual scene of the crime and what Peterson said happened, and reading many of your comments, Rob, I think Peterson’s defense team should go with the “Colombian Drug lords murdered Kathleen defense”—since that “theory” didn’t seem to be necessary to get O.J. Simpson off the hook from his crimes.
A piece of Swiss cheese has less holes than Peterson’s story and the alternative Owl Theory. I think you are doing an excellent job of presenting all of the facts and not just having to defend the blood evidence that Duane Deaver may or may not have falsified. From all of my amateur knowledge, as soon as I saw that wall of blood with the spatter I knew that it wasn’t from an “accidental fall.”
BTW, in the Forensic Files episode, they kept saying that Peterson went out to smoke a pipe, not a cigar. I’m presuming that’s an error on Forensic Files’ part? Also, the forensic meteorologist pointed out that in 50° weather, it would be highly unlikely that a person could sit outside in the clothes that Peterson was wearing for such a long time and feel comfortable.
LikeLike
Thanks for your comments, David Kramer. Dateline NBC reports that Michael was out at the pool smoking a cigar. Other reports say a cigarette, and still others say he was smoking a pipe. I will have to look on the appeal to see which is true.
Because he needed an extra 45 minutes to one hour when he changed his story, and because it takes 45 minutes to smoke a cigar, I figured the cigar story was the correct one. Michael is a pipe smoker, though I’m not sure if he was in 2001.
I saw that about the 50 degree weather. I think they did go outside, but not at the time of the killing. I think that story is just to put Michael as far away from the staircase as possible.
If there was any other possibility that I could imagine, I would not be saying Peterson is guilty. But there is no other possibility, other than another attacker, and outside attackers don’t clean up and stage the scene.
I took the owl theory seriously when I first heard it, but after about an hour of research, I rejected it. Nice try, though.
There is a real interest in this case as shown by the hits this article gets which has gone up a lot in the last few months. I hope they get to the re-trial this year.
Thanks for the compliment. I appreciate it! 🙂
LikeLike
It doesn’t say in the appeal whether Peterson was smoking a pipe or cigar as Kathleen lay dying. Most accounts say it was a pipe, so I’ll agree with that. It’s amazing the mistakes people make as even the appeal says Kathleen fell down a “winding staircase”, when we know the back stair case is straight and doesn’t wind at all.
LikeLike
She had a blood alcohol level of 0.07 and Valium in her system. Your assertions that her tox screen were clear simply aren’t true. I’m not taking sides, but that was one of the first few sentences I read in your story, and it’s just not what the case states.
LikeLike
Thanks for your comments, Miche. Did you read the entire article? Do you have any education in science?
This is what you said – “Your assertions that her tox screen were clear simply aren’t true.”
This is what I actually wrote “Kathleen’s toxicology reports showed no alcohol or drug use of any significance, although Michael kept telling that story more and more.”
Significant is a scientific term. No significance does not mean no alcohol or drug use, it means no significance. This means not nearly enough valium or alcohol to cause a level of impairment. That’s exactly what the case states.
I go on to note that Michael started emphasizing that story more and more about the alcohol and drugs. He told everyone and anyone who would listen.
LikeLike
Also, I am a NC native, tried to keep up with this case as it happened, and recall a great deal of it. I recently watched “The Staircase” on Sundance, but there’s another doc called,”Death on the Staircase” that’s being mentioned– is that the Dateline special or something else altogether/
LikeLike
Death on the Staircase was the Documentary made by Jean Xavier de Lestrade. It’s fascinating and documents the preparation and trial from the Defense point of view. You can watch it for free, just Google “death on the staircase”. If you can’t find it, I’ll get you the link.
LikeLike
Apologies if that answer is contained in all of these comments, I find comment thread wars able to cause headaches at the drop of a hat.
LikeLike
I think there is more information in the comments than there is in the article. I hope I can message you to get your opinion on other North Carolina cases? 🙂
LikeLike
With all respect, stranger things have happened . Being that it was the time a year for nesting(owls are crazy at that time) As you posted the “worst photo of a owl attack you could find” I did my own search to and saw some really bad ones. Not saying your search did not turn up the worst one for you. Now for the blood inside the shorts , the picture you posted is of the outside of the shorts that he was wearing. They look to me as if they still have blood splats on them and he could after the police got there rubbed his hands on them , just a thought that i am sure you will argue with. Now lets say it was a owl attack . She passes though the kitchen grabs the paper towels not thinking it is that bad and heads up the stairs and from blood loss she faints and hits her head on the way down making things worse . Not saying he is not guilty or guilty. just stranger things have happened in this world.
LikeLike
Peterson, is that you?
Thanks for your comments, Michael. Yeah, that’s a great point. There’s no murder weapon found, no real motive. These two were really close. No problem of any size is going to turn physical in an hour.
Christmas was coming, the tree was already up. Their adult children were expected home for Christmas. At least one was already there.
Kathleen may have been a little loopy from wine and Valium and it was a long weekend. They indeed are out by the pool, but Kathleen has to get back inside. Just a little later, she goes back outside, possibly in the front yard. Light reflects off her glasses and is mistaken as the reflection of the light off prey. An owl strikes!
Kathleen grabs at her own hair, trying to remove this “thing”, whatever it is. The owl panics and digs in, tearing flesh. Finally,it untangles itself and escapes. Kathleen holds her head and runs for the front door or the kitchen door. She’s trying to get to Michael for help.
She grabs the paper towel roll in the kitchen and makes a beeline for the back staircase. She gets up 5 or 6 stairs, then stumbles, flailing wildly. She hits her head on a stair and hits against the wall. Now she’s breathing and coughing up blood, she gets up, but slips in her own blood and again loses her footing, this time falling on her back and sliding feet first down a few stairs, her feet resting in the hallway. Michael comes upon this scene and is flabbergasted.
Oh, btw, if you found worse owl attacks than I did, why don’t you give the links and share them with us?
Thanks. – Rob
LikeLike
https://www.bing.com/images/search?q=Owl+Attacks+On+Humans&view=detailv2&id=8351C0D4ED87AB083183D27E9710F7EA276023FB&selectedindex=108&ccid=3SFEQ4CT&simid=608055009367231410&thid=OIP.Mdd2144438093114a221db4a9822a2783o0&mode=overlay&first=1
LikeLike
Thanks, Michael. I have seen most of these pics before, and they are more bloody than anything else. But the one in the front I had not seen before, and that one is pretty bad. His face is all poked full of holes and his head must be worse, because it’s all bandaged up. Also, it looks like a lot of at least one ear is gone.
I just thought of something – If they have two or three microscopic feathers, then they must be able to narrow it down to exactly what type of owl this was. Was this the type of owl that was capable of at least some of the damage done to Kathleen? If it is, then there’s even more reasonable doubt for the jury. But, I just don’t get that there’s no feathers in the house, if the owl was still on Kathleen inside the house, or a blood trail if the attack ended outside. That’s where i get stuck.
LikeLike
I am not saying he did not do it or that he did. I just know stranger things have happened in this world. I do not have every fact and honestly do not know if any of us will ever will. I myself do question both sides on this one. The most important thing is a person has lost there life to soon. I hope no matter what happened that sad night I hope she gets to rest in piece . You also have very good points . Where was the feathers, but at the time they where not looking for a owl attack and can overlook such things BUT, there should have been a trail of blood from where the attack took place like you said. I do however find it interesting that signs with warnings of owl attacks are popping up everywhere across the country and wonder at the same time if this is something that his lawyers saw and decided to try and use as a defense.
LikeLike
link to “death on the staircase”? I tried googling and all I get is results for “the staircase”.
LikeLike
It’s the same thing. http://www.sundance.tv/watch-now/the-staircase/4687933180001/crime-or-accident
LikeLike
I do not know how anyone can assume what has happened based on evidence that is so obviously corrupt. I have read comments above and to be quite honest Rob you have based your comments information you have received, but how can you be sure this information is reliable. I just watched Staircase 2 and watched the tests that where made in regards to the blood splatter. I could not see how they came to the conclusions. It was an independent inquiry into Deevers testimony and it was proven that it was no true. I am from Australia and our legal system does not allow the media to try the case before, during and after the trial. I think our system is much fairer. This is not the first time this has occurred and everyone perceives things differently. One might say stick to the facts, but when the facts are so tainted by those who are expected to have total integrity it is hard to have an opinion. I have to say I thought he was guilty, but after watching those tests and how they were conducted, listened to Mr Deever lie under oath, I am inclined to believe the man is innocent.
LikeLike
Thanks, Rhonda for your comments. I also believe that the Australia / UK / South African systems are better in that they do not allow the media to get at and disseminate so much information before and during a trial. I definitely agree that the media should discuss the trials only after they are complete.
It’s also true that Duane Deaver is a bad guy who falsified information and testimony.
But forget about scientific testing and all that for a minute. Unless you want to say that someone else murdered Kathleen, You have to answer how a person could get into a situation leaving all that blood spatter in that particular way?
The answer for me, is that there is no way. Not by a fall of an kind, not by an animal attack. There is no way at all.
So, I have to posit that another person killed Kathleen. But there’s no motive and no murder weapon. So, all I’m left with is the son did it and Michael Peterson took the blame. I have also ruled that out as not being possible.
That’s just my opinion among a group of people reading this blog or among a group of people very interested in this case.
If you feel differently, that’s great, that’s fine. I just wish someone would explain exactly how and why they think something else happened.
Yes, Michael Peterson seems like an engaging, interesting, and cultured man. Just never forget that he was not just an enlisted man, but an Officer in the United States Marines who lied about being wounded in combat and he even purchased four medals that he was not awarded. Even his wife did not know this. Just remember that and remember that 3 people Michael Peterson knew intimately all died unnatural deaths..
LikeLike
Obviously you care only about your opinion and the opinions of those who agree with you! The article was ok…not great…no new info then I’ve read in other articles…you said you (or the artcle) had received “national” attention? I find your attacks on commenters totally unprofessional and can not image that a “nationally” recognized writer would behave in such a childish way…I’d like to know what kind of educational background you have in blood spatter, owl attacks, stair case falls, botched investigations, writing, law, ect.
Please do not respond with one of your run on rants, a simple “thank you for your comment” will do just fine…
LikeLike
You are a person who doesn’t read the comments, or you would have seen that my opinion is only one of many. Instead of insults, how about explaining how an accident or an owl attack could yield that crime scene? Without a single drop of blood on the way from either the kitchen or the front door? There hasn’t been a single attack on a commenter. Just different opinions.
P.S. Peterson is sooo guilty, in my opinion.
LikeLike
There’s something wrong with you! You lay out all the facts of this case (eventually), verbally attack anyone that disagrees with you because you think you’re right, but you do it in a vicious, condescending way as if they are idiots, and THEN you proceed to say you think he has some good qualities that you seem to admire? And then you proceed to make a complete Twat of yourself by pronouncing that the west memphis 3 are innocent! Look in the mirror idiot!
LikeLike
The West Memphis Three ARE innocent and they are free now. There’s zero evidence of their involvement. What are you talking about?
Maybe you didn’t read the part where I said I lay out all the facts, good and bad, then I give my opinion, but my opinion is just one of many people who are interested in this case and one opinion of many reading this blog.
I’m definitely interested in all other opinions, but I want to see your reasons for believing what you believe. You haven’t given any – surprise, surprise. I’m very, very confident of the guilt of people I conclude are guilty. I’m really usually on the side of the defense. I would never say someone is guilty unless I was absolutely sure.
I do not verbally abuse anyone or put anyone down, that’s just your interpretation, but I am very confident in my conclusions. I have so far only been wrong once, and that was with Jodi Arias. I revised my opinion on that case.
If you think Michael the Dillhole Peterson is innocent, think about this: Michael Peterson is a very amiable and likable person, but he doesn’t know how to cope with his own homosexuality or bisexuality and he has a talent for using people and lying a lot, not to mention that 3 people he was very close to suddenly up and died.
He claims he came upon his wife, Kathleen, on her back at the foot of the stairs with her legs spread out, just the way you see in the photo. He claims he tried to render first aid, but he claims he did not move her from the position he found her in.
Okay? Now listen closely …..
There was a large shoe print in blood on the back of her leg. Can you explain this within a rubric of innocence? I can’t.
So, Chaz, are you Chaz Bono? Because if you are, you were better looking as a girl . I think your best bet is to go f*ck yourself, because the best girl you are going to be able to get is yourself, even with all Cher’s money.
You really are a dum dummy, Chaz, but thanks for reading and have a nice day 🙂
LikeLike
My point proved as I didn’t mention his innocence or guilt yet you go off on a rant again! “Michael Peterson is a very amiable and likable person” are you fucking kidding me here??? I personally think he’s guilty as sin & was not for one minute persuaded of his innocence by a totally biased documentary. Just as I was not persuaded by 3 totally biased documentaries on the West Memphis 3 who, (just for the record) were not set free but are time served convicted child killers who pleaded guilty to their evil despicable crime!
LikeLike
Ha Ha. You are the first person I heard saying the West Memphis Three are guilty. I{ll have to look back into that case.
If you watch the staircase or death on the staircase documentary, you can see how Michael is in fact an amiable and likable person, very upper class.
I think his attorney was getting more and more frustrated as Michael did not tell him things, and he was finding them out one at a time during the trial.
I think his attorney did believe in Michael at first, but when Rudolph found out more information, I believe he found himself in a bad position.
Okay, so let me take another look at the Three and I’ll do an article on Damian and the boys.
LikeLike
Unfortunately, I don’t think we’ll ever know the truth, because I doubt he will be retried. Deaver destroyed the case and now too much reasonable doubt exist. It’s all speculation at this point. His lies and behavior doesn’t necessarily say he murdered his wife. If I was sitting on a jury and heard this trial without the Deaver blood spatter testimony, then I wouldn’t be inclined to convict, unless prosecution could come with new evidence.
LikeLike
Well, Shem, I may be inclined to believe that 1) North Carolina may decide to leave this case be. and 2) There may just not be enough evidence to convict.
But there’s one thing I’m very sure of, and that is that Michael Peterson deliberately caused the death of his wife, Kathleen.
LikeLike
Mr. Roman, what is your opinion on the case of Darlie Routier. Just curious.
LikeLike
Hi, Jezmyopinion,
Yes, I do have an article on Darlie Routier. I have also gone back and forth on that case too, but I’m confident that she’s guilty after a thorough look into as many facts as i could find.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Rob, did you happen to notice the younger daughter whose mother died in Germany had a resemblance to Michael Peterson? Could it be possible that Peterson was actually her biological father? That would explain the complex relationships between the two families (why Elizabeth the biological mother would make Michael Peterson as the guardian if she dies).
LikeLike
Lee, I think there is something there between Liz Ratliffe and her husband and Michael Peterson.
Maybe Michael and Liz Ratliffe’s husband had something going on?
I think his name was George, and he also died mysteriously shortly before the Grenada Invasion, possibly of arsenic poisoning.
This is why the Ratliffe children went to live with Michael Peterson. They were orphans.
LikeLike
I hope the name “stair master” sticks to him lol- that made me laugh harder than the owl theory.
LikeLike
That was an original from me.
Patrick, I remember seeing this on Snapped or something like that. It really sounds like it could have been a bizarre accident….
…. Then they find the information about the previous woman at the bottom of another staircase in Germany. By the end of that show, people can not help but think this is just too much of a coincidence.
The owl theory, i think is a great theory of how something LIKE this COULD happen, but it does not match the evidence in this case, imo.
LikeLike
Rob. I have just come across your forum after viewing the documentary in the UK. The show was rather like a roller coaster ride. Guilty, not guilty, guilty etc.
I’m still pretty unsure of what really happened and my gut told me guilty. However, I was somewhat perplexed at a couple of the sentences used by Michael during the documentary when describing what happened that night. I was slightly troubled when he said, ‘We watched a movie and left the dinner plates in the lounge’ it just didn’t seem to make sense to me. I only ever leave the plates when I’m drunk or too tired and heading for bed. Not to take them to the kitchen before leaving for the pool seems odd to me. And then ‘We had two bottles of wine’. Almost implying that Kathleen would have been drunk. Would I ever say that? Not sure.
Anyway. I shall be checking back on your forum for updates. Great job and I enjoy hearing your thoughts and those of others.
Thanks. Steven UK
LikeLike
Thanks a lot Steven.
Yes, come to think of it, that was an odd thing to say, especially since they were only a few yards away from the kitchen.
I started very much in the not guilty camp, but then the more I learned, the more I changed my mind.
I even went to the extreme of watching the last movie they watched together “America’s Sweethearts”, looking to see if there were any clues there.
Yeah, please check back. Did you know that the police found the sink trap in the kitchen was full of wine and Kathleen’s prints were not on the wine glasses? – only Mike Peterson’s.
LikeLike
I just watch a tv show about this case. The forensics clearly points to the fact that he did indeed kill Kathleen and they exhumed the body of the other lady and found similar head marks on her. He is a fictional writer, so he had the background to know how to try and sway things in the case. Apparently her daughter feels he is guilty and that they were having financial issues and she was the only provider and her job was in jeopardy. Kathleen also had a two million dollar life insurance policy. She had blood on the bottom of her feet and the blood had congealed pointing to the fact that she lay there for a while before he called the police. Blood was found on door frames and outside of the house which suggests a simple fall down the stairs is most likely questionable at best.
LikeLike
Thanks for your comments, Kathleen.
I agree with you. All the things you mentioned are facts. One fact pro-Michael people like to overlook, is the bloody footprint on the back of Kathleen’s leg. The way she was “found”, only the fronts of her legs were exposed. So this precludes the owl and any type of accident in my mind.
To me, and I guess to you, it’s open-and-shut. – GUILTY.
LikeLike
I’m curious as to all this talk from Dr. Lee about “coughing blood”. Why would she have been coughing blood? From everything I’ve read, she had no chest injuries, punctured lungs, broken ribs, skull fractures, etc. And this all assumes that someone injured could cough blood up to 8 ft. Perhaps he’s thinking the blood from her head was running down into her mouth? Did she bite her tongue? Break a tooth? This makes no sense to me at all. Unless they can find an injury that would correspond with that reaction (and maybe they did and I missed it), that leaves the answer that the splatter came from blows or blow-back.
LikeLike
Great Point, Tarheelgal, and I suppose Dr. Lee is assuming that blood ran down Kathleen Peterson’s scalp and down her face and into her mouth, but look at her body – there’s zero indication of that.
Henry Lee was a bought and paid for expert and he was providing an opinion that was wholly theoretical. People who are pro Peterson like to ignore that.
Dr. Lee based his theoretical opinion on limited information, deciding that an accident was more likely simply because statistically, accidents in the home are far more likely than murder.
I lost a little respect for Dr. Henry Lee in this case, but Pro-Peterson people also want to forget and ignore that neither Henry Lee, nor Mike Peterson’s own attorney, David Rudolph, knew ALL the Facts until well into the case, when Mike Peterson was forced to talk about his gay play dates and the other dead woman at the bottom of the stairs in Germany – Elizabeth Ratliff.
Michael Peterson was also the last person to see her alive, and as you said, she was also beaten about the head with what appears to me to be an umbrella – and it WAS raining that evening before her death.
Liz Ratliffe had also complained of severe headaches she was having 3 days before she died. This could be a sign of poisoning. Liz told Michael she was going to the Doctor after the weekend and she ended up dead just days before that appointment.
Also, Captain George Ratliff, Liz Ratliff’s husband, died mysteriously of what could have been arsenic poisoning while staging for involvement in the 1983 Grenada invasion.
The resemblance is remarkable
[IMG]http://i65.tinypic.com/f9ktqt.jpg[/IMG]
Kathleen Peterson’s face is clean as a whistle, except for a little blood dripping out of her mouth. I have the uncensored pic, and there is almost no blood in the censored area.
What do you say to THAT, Dr. Lee?
So, that’s 3 people involved with Peterson who died suddenly and “accidentally” or mysteriously.
Hmmmmm …
LikeLike
I also have to disagree with the majority- I thought the 911 call sounded fake from the beginning, especially if you take into account the two hang-ups. While he does sound like he’s crying/upset, he also sounds distracted – cleaning or adjusting the scene perhaps? Given that even the defense experts had to agree that she was alive for a minimum of 30 minutes after she began bleeding, the blood on her soles, the paper towels/towels at the scene, it makes me wonder if he thought he’d killed her and was doing some staging when she “reappeared”, and then he had to finish her off. That would account for the paper towels and the bloody feet and the lapse of time between the 911 call and the time of death. Unfortunately, he may walk free due to Deavers. They’re reinvestigating 30+ of the crimes he did work on. Mistakes in investigations don’t necessarily make one innocent, but then the prosecution has to hedge it’s bets that they have enough evidence to counteract the flaws that may have been made. T’wil be interesting to see how the retrial goes, assuming it does.
LikeLike
I feel the same way. He may luck out. How many people just hang up during a 911 call? Not many. The red neurons mean she was alive for 45 minutes to 2 hours after she first started bleeding.
I think the evidence showed that she did get attacked,she went down,she came back up, and she was attacked a second time.
I hope they do retry Michael Peterson – before a 4th person dies.
LikeLike
You did a REALLY good job on the case analysis (in your article and comments). I’ve watched the case profiled on Dateline (more than once), Forensic Files, American Justice, The New Detectives, and heard the case on Criminal Podcast. I agree that nothing else makes sense other than Michael Peterson committing the crime (and possibly crimes, but I’m not 100% convinced on the couple). The Owl Theory is SO far fetched. I’ve seen many crime scene photos myself, as I’m a huge true crime fan, this doesn’t look like an accidental fall. I didn’t know The Staircase existed until I read one of your comments. I’ll go watch it now. Thanks!
LikeLike
You’re very welcome. As to the first “accidental” death of Elizabeth Ratliff, the analysis and article are quite short, but the research and the “homework” that went into it took a long time.
People think I’m real biased about this case, but in fact, we entered it with an open mind. Michael Peterson far more than likely murdered Elizabeth Ratliff, but more than likely it was on the spur of the moment. My belief is that Peterson poisoned George Ratliff, and was attempting to do the same to Elizabeth. In two days, she was going to the doctor to find out why she had such extreme headaches, which is often a sign of poisoning. It was raining that night and Elizabeth and the two girls were having dinner with the Petersons. Michael escorted them home in the rain. Something transpired, and I believe he battered her with an umbrella.
20 years later, Kathleen Peterson discovered Michael’s emails to a male prostitute who was also a student art Duke. Something transpired that resulted in her murder.
In my mind there’s no other answer, but to get there, like you and me, people really have to take a close look at all the facts. Michael is a very endearing and charming person, there’s no question on that. When a person sees through that outer layer of charm, you could be very much in danger of losing your life.
Thank you, Heather, for appreciating the hard work Amanda and I did on this article!
LikeLike
I found The Staircase on YT and got 3 segments in before I turned it off. I’ll keep watching it later, but it was getting boring. I went into the case initially thinking he was innocent. I try to give people the benefit of the doubt from the beginning because it’s harder to go from thinking someone is guilty to innocent vs innocent to guilty. If he is lying, he’s a really good liar. He seems like a master manipulator.
LikeLike
Mr. Roman –
I just finished watching The Staircase and The Staircase II and it definitely left me with many questions as to what facts were omitted or not clearly presented in the documentaries. I am still in the beginning stages of researching the facts of the case as best I can from Internet articles etc. (your Blog being one avenue of exploration). One article I read mentioned that de Lestrade’s motivation for making the film was to highlight MP’s persecution due to his sexual orientation and marital lifestyle. After watching the documentary and reading many articles etc. I must admit that on that point I agree with de Lestrade’s view.
I appreciate the wealth of knowledge and facts you present in this blog, however, when it comes to the sexual orientation of MP I cannot condone using it as a motivation for murder. There is no evidence of any kind that shows that his wife was not fully aware of his involvement with other men outside their marriage. Unfortunatley, it is far too commonplace to find that people interject their own views and experiences into the motives of others therefore skewing the overall picture.
It seems according to the many many posts listed above that there is more than enough evidence to prove your opinion without resorting to a biased opinion of their marriage and what may or may not have been deemed “an affair”. I humbly suggest that you leave the conjecture out of the opinions presented and stick to the facts you can prove.
With respect
Jenny
LikeLike
Well, Jenny, that all makes sense, but it seemed to me that it was not the sexual orientation at all. There was more concern that Michael, who was a local reporter, wrote many articles critical of the local government and the police in Durham, North Carolina, and this was the reason he was so aggressively prosecuted, according to many sources.
The Staircase Documentary seems to raise a lot of questions, however it was heavily slanted towards the defense, and leaves out vital information. You can even see if you watch the documentary carefully, that Michael’s lead attorney, David Rudolf, gets increasingly dismayed that Michael failed to disclose the death of Elizabeth Ratliff or that it involved a staircase. The gay prostitute Michael had dealings with just prior to the death of Kathleen also came as a surprise. Due to a phone call that night and an e-mail that Kathleen had to send right away, Kathleen had occasion to use Michael’s computer that very night, and this hardly ever happened, because she had her own computer at work.
Michael, in the midst of the sudden and horific death of his wife, was extremely concerned about deleting ‘something’ off of his computer. Wouldn’t that be the last thing you or I would be doing? Michael is a nice guy and a fascinating guy, but there’s something not ringing true here.
To condense it down – Michael changed his story. There was blood spatter on and inside his shorts. The red neurons tell people who understand this that it was 1 to 2 hours after Kathleen was first knocked down until the police were called. When the police got there, the blood had already dried.
These four facts alone are inescapable and spell murder for me. As for Kathleen not knowing about it, it’s just too much of a coincidence for me that right at the time that Michael’s gay liaison rejected him, and right at the time that Kathleen used his computer was right about the time when Kathleen dies in what could only be described as a one-in-a-million home accident.
LikeLike
Mr. Roman –
I just finished watching The Staircase and The Staircase II and it definitely left me with many questions as to what facts were omitted or not clearly presented in the documentaries. I am still in the beginning stages of researching the facts of the case as best I can from Internet articles etc. (your Blog being one avenue of exploration). One article I read mentioned that one of de Lestrade’s primary motivations for making the film was to highlight the persecution Michael Peterson faced during his trial due to his sexual orientation and marital lifestyle. After watching the documentary and reading many articles etc. I must admit that on that point I agree with de Lestrade’s view.
I appreciate the wealth of knowledge and facts you present in this blog. However, when it comes to the sexual orientation of Michael Peterson, I cannot condone using it as a motivation for murder. There is no evidence of any kind that shows that his wife was not fully aware of his involvement with other men outside their marriage. That viewpoint is pure conjecture. Unfortunately, it is far too commonplace to find that people interject their own views and experiences into the motives of others therefore skewing the overall issue.
It seems according to the many, many posts listed above that there is more than enough evidence to prove your opinions without resorting to a biased view of their marriage and what may or may not have been deemed “an affair”. I humbly suggest that you leave the conjecture out of the opinions presented and stick to the facts you can prove.
Warmest Regards
LikeLike
I think the real danger of bias towards Michael at the time of the trial came from Michael’s scathing articles about corruption and incompetency in the police and the district attorney’s office of Durham, North Carolina. The idea was that the police and DA would get revenge by over-prosecuting and even persecuting Michael Peterson.
There is at least some circumstantial evidence that Kathleen did not know what Michael was up to. If you watch the staircase very carefully, you will see that Rudolf becomes increasingly perturbed that Michael did not tell him about his affairs or the prostitute he tried to hire but ultimately rejected him. There were some very emotional e-mails and notes in that desk and on that computer where Kathleen never went near until she had to get an e-mail late at night and very unexpectedly on the night she died. Michael Peterson’s highest priority on the night Kathleen died, besides trying to clean up the scene a little, was to delete e-mails off of his computer. Please give another scenario in which these coincidences fit together but point to innocence?
LikeLike
Hi Rob
Thanks for your well researched article and additional commentary in the comments section.
Just finished watching Lestrade’s ‘Staircase’ and ‘Staircase II’. The documentaries were clearly centred around the Peterson family so I wanted to round out my understanding of the case and happened upon your blog entry amongst other sites on the net.
There were a few things that struck me as fishy as I watched Staircase:
– A somewhat intangible sensation that Michael Peterson just had a little bit too much ‘swagger’ for a guy whose wife had just died
– Chapter 1, 10:47 where Michael Peterson says to cameras ‘Kathleen was my life, I whispered her name in my heart thousand times’ – felt too rehearsed
– Chapter 2, 8:11 where Ron Guerette talks about the Dennis Rowe gay hook-up (4 or 5 times) to Michael Peterson, MP’s reaction is bizarre, seemingly over-playing his reaction and asking too many questions
– Very little air time on Kathleen herself which was odd
– The scenes with Brad (Chapter 6, 12:20) – felt like Brad had been coached by the defendant’s legal team
– The ‘About Kathleen’ extras segment where Todd Peterson relates a story about a conversation he had overheard ‘several months earlier’ that a virus on the family PC had emailed the contents of the desktop to the Peterson’s email list and at that point Kathleen had advised Mike Peterson to take the gay pornographic photos off the PC – thus ‘proving’ Kathleen knew about Mike’s bisexuality and was fine with it – this whole segment feels just a little bit too convenient
Viewing all the evidence in totality (the Staircase documentary certainly does NOT provide a full picture) – it seems clear that Michael Peterson murdered Kathleen.
Contributing factors:
– Too clever by half Michael Peterson rang 911 twice – once at 2:40am (claiming Kathleen was still breathing) and again at 2:46am (claiming Kathleen was now no longer breathing) – i.e. trying to position she had died between 2:40am – 2:46am on Dec 9, 2001. Presumably to cover-up that she had been dead for some time – the time Mike Peterson needed to get rid of evidence and stage the scene
– Problem is the red neurons found in her brain – Kathleen was already dead when MP rang 911 – For at least 2 hours per prosecution Neuropathologist Dr. Thomas Bouldin and at least 30 minutes per Defence expert witness Dr. Jan Leestma, former Chief of Neurology at the medical center at Northwestern University in Chicago
– When paramedics and fire crew arrived on the scene at 2:48am they later testified the blood was already dry, and that pooled blood had begun to congeal
– Caught by the science that Kathleen was already dead, Mike Peterson amazingly changed his story from a quick return trip back to the house to turn off the “pool lights” to lounging by the pool smoking a cigar for 45 minutes – it is impossible to understate the significance of this change in story, who would accidentally forget that they stayed out by the pool for another 45 minutes smoking a cigar?
The financial situation:
– This is huge. Kathleen was the breadwinner – Michael stood to gain $1.5M in payout from Kathleen’s life insurance policy.
– Michael himself was not earning any money and sponging off this wife, and hadn’t earned any money for 3 years
– The Petersons had $143K of credit card debt – this is a huge amount of credit card debt
– After the trial, Michael Peterson had to file for indigency (filed 17 Nov, 2003) and is now being represented courtesy of the tax payer
The loving couple / “soulmates” veneer
– Kathleen had divorced her previous husband due to infidelity with other women (per Caitlin Atwater), so why would she be OK with Michael Peterson cheating on her with other men?
– Kathleen had a 10am conference call on the Sunday (Dec 9 2001) – and her colleague Helen Prislinger had sent her an email with the presentation to support the conference call at 11:53pm on Dec 9 (Helen and Kathleen also spoke on the phone at 11:08pm and Prislinger testified that Kathleen did not sound drunk or drugged)
– Due to the conference call being in the weekend and Kathleen having left her work laptop at work, the presentation was sent to the Peterson’s home email address so that Kathleen could pick up the presentation on the home PC – Kathleen rarely used the home PC and had to ask her husband what their home email address was – this is significant
– It is entirely plausible that Kathleen went to check the home PC for the email and found the emails that Michael Peterson had been exchanging with gay escorts as well as the gay pornography on the PC.
– She may then have confronted him about this and raised the possibility of divorce. Already under financial duress and with his source of financial support threatening divorce, Michael Peterson then saw his lifestyle as he knew it flashing in front of his eyes and took matters into his own hands.
– Based on an email that Michael Peterson sent his ex-wife Patricia sent Nov 29, 2001, Michael lamented their boys’ (Todd and Clayton) financial situation and coming to arrangement to help them out noting “It is simply not possible for me to discuss this with Kathleen” – if he can’t discuss finances with Kathleen, is it beyond the realms of possibility that he also wouldn’t reveal his bi-sexuality to Kathleen? (Michael also kept his bisexuality hidden from his legal team until deeper into the case)
– The covert emails with a gay male escort goes against the grain of a loving ‘soulmate’ relationship – and goes to character re: deception and double lives (per lying re: purple hearts) and goes to motive re: grounds for Kathleen divorcing Michael Peterson. Additionally the language in the emails is very graphic – and goes to character (you can arrange a hook-up without resorting to 4 letter words and size of appendages)
– Nationwide study by John Hopkins University’s School of Nursing found that the most common relationship factors that independently increase the risk of a woman being murdered include (1) a home with a stepchild of an abuser, (2) an abuser’s highly controlling behaviour – CHECK and (3) a woman separating from the abuser – POTENTIAL CHECK (per Caitlin Atwater – “He’s [Michael Peterson] incredibly controlling and manipulative”)
Liz Ratliff similarities
– neuropathologist Dr. Aaron Gleckman, said in his opinion, Ratliff died from blunt-force trauma to the head
– As with Kathleen, Michael personally profited from Liz’s death (receiving money and goods), and was in charge of Liz’s estate
– As with Kathleen, was the last person to see Liz alive
– Both died same way, and with lots of blood (three eye-witnesses, Barbara Malagnino, Amybeth Berne and Cheryl Appel-Schumacher testified to there being lots of blood at the scene of Liz’s death)
– Eerily, both Liz and Kathleen were found dead at the foot of a staircase, with a poster of the ‘Chat Noir’ hanging above the victim at the foot of the staircase in both situations. Both relatives of Liz and Kathleen had to wipe blood off the Chat Noir poster in both situations.
– Affidavit from Karin Hamm admitted to the Peterson trial mentions that the sound of a slamming door drew her to her bedroom window at 12:50 A.M. November 25, 1985. She looked out the window and saw Mike Peterson hurriedly leaving Liz Ratliff’s home.
– Remembering Barbara Stager, killed her second husband by shooting him in the head in 1988, claimed it was an accident and was set to collect $1M in life insurance payout – until it came to light her previous husband had also died by gunshot to the head 11 years prior. Barbara’s children still maintain their mother is innocent of both murders. The previous suspicious death of her husband pointed to a pattern and cast doubt on the accidental nature of the second murder.
– Remembering Timothy Boczkowksi – killed his second wife in 1994 by drowning her in the hot tub. Four years earlier had killed his first wife by drowning her in the hot tub. Both women were in their mid 30’s, looked similar enough to be twin sisters and both had generous life insurance cover. The previous suspicious death of the first wife was used to establish a pattern.
Additionally:
– Blood spatter pattern found inside Michael Peterson’s shorts – how do get blood spatter inside your shorts in that pattern if you weren’t standing over Kathleen bludgeoning away at her?
– A shoeprint matching Michael Peterson’s shoe was found on the *back* of Kathleen’s leg but yet she was found slumped in a sitting position
– Kathleen found with *cut* hairs in her hand – how you cut hairs on wooden steps or a door moulding?
– Blood spatter found up to 70” high – how does blood get that high from just an accidental fall?
– Beyond the head injuries, Kathleen had defensive type wounds on face, hands and forearms – but no other injuries or bruising on the rest of her body. How do you fall down a bunch of stairs and not sustain some injuries to the rest of your body?
Random stuff
– The “Black Cat” poster was at foot of the stairs in the Kathleen murder was also present at Liz Ratliff’s house (although it appears to not be the same physical poster)
– In Michael Peterson’s house a notebook titled “O.J Simpson Notebook” was found, which police took into evidence
– He lied about having received two purple hearts in the Vietnam war – this goes to character and given the stolen valour aspect is a significant lie
– Dr. Lee hypothesised that Kathleen coughed blood up the wall – but hadn’t tested the blood to see if it contained saliva
– Michael Peterson took his shoes and socks off – strange behaviour
– A roll of paper towels is clearly visible near Kathleen’s body – why is it there? Straight up odd.
– Evidence some of the crime scene had been cleaned prior to EMT and police arriving
– Luminol showed footprints going to / from the laundry
– Windex bottle was found in an odd location – not where it was usually stored
– The wine glasses – only Michael Peterson’s fingerprints were found; additionally the empty wine bottle matching the residue of the wine in these glasses was never found
– Michael Peterson refused to cooperate with police the night of the murder
– Michael Peterson was checking his emails / on his PC while the EMTs and police were on the scene – who sits on their PC when their wife has just died?
– Michael Peterson did not in any way cooperate with the police
– Michael Peterson left Kathleen’s funeral arrangements to her sister Candace Zamperini, and bickered with Candace over petty sums of money and details associated with the funeral
– Michael Peterson left his deceased wife’s blood on the stairwell for 18 months… possibly to assist his expert witnesses but damned odd nonetheless
– Kathleen’s blood alcohol limit was under the legal limit to drive in NC – defence tried to paint Kathleen as having had wine, champagne, valium and carelessly fell while wearing flip-flops
– Hundreds of photos had been deleted from the family PC the day before Kathleen died, and two dies afterwards
– In more than 25 years, there is no report in North Carolina of a fall down stairs causing scalp lacerations that led to a fatal loss of blood
– Prosecution expert witness Dr. McElhaney testified that Kathleen’s head could not bounce on the steps with enough velocity to cause the lacerations incurred
– Michael Peterson’s own sister, Ann Christensen believes her brother is guilty
– The Staircase Chapter 7 46:30, Michael Peterson doesn’t want to put his son Clayton on the stand (as Clayton ‘discovered’ the blowpoke in the family garage) – claiming a pending DWI charge on Clayton. Unspoken was Clayton Peterson spending 4 years in jail when he was 19 for planting a small bomb in the Duke University office – not exactly normal teenage hijinks behaviour
– Visual similarity of Kathleen, Liz and Patty is striking
– Many serial killers report that the impulse to kill is irresistible. They say it’s a like a hunger that appears every so often — a horrible craving that cannot be ignored
– Who agrees to let a film crew be up close in your personal space of you and your family during such a sensitive time? Supposedly Michael Peterson allowed the documentary to capture how unfair being tried in Durham would be, but maybe Michael Peterson just liked being in the spotlight (as the Lifetime Network’s “The Staircase Murders” suggests)
– The owl theory – addressed by Rob in this article; the whole theory is ridiculous and defies common sense
– Duane Deaver unconscionable falsifying of his experience was really disappointing. He did not need to do this and this allowed Michael Peterson to be released – I haven’t dived deep on exactly what Duane Deaver lied about, but the totality of the evidence is still overwhelming nonetheless
Conclusion
– Let’s not forget plain common sense. How do you get those type of head wounds and that amount of blood from falling down the stairs (and only injuries were to head, neck, hands, forearms – no injuries or bruising to rest of body?).
– Watching Staircase from the perspective of Michael Peterson being guilty, you see a chilling sociopath. Also, apart from being very bias towards Michael Peterson and leaving out tonnes of critical evidence and data points, the Staircase ‘documentary’ pushed this homophobic / narrow-minded-Durham-residents-can’t-accept-that-Mike-and-Kathleen-had-an-open-marriage-and-that-Mike-is-bisexual narrative (as the reason Michael Peterson got convicted), which is completely outrageous.
– Agree with Rob – how many people do you know are connected with only one suspicious death, let alone two (or possibly three)?
– I feel for Margaret and Martha – imagine trying to reconcile that your dad killed both your biological mother Liz and your mother Kathleen; I can see that you just wouldn’t want to even think about that possibility as it would completely wreck and destroy your entire worldview
Rob – Some questions for you:
Where did you get that George Ratcliff died in mysterious circumstances, possibly arsenic?
Where in the original source material is the cigar itself mentioned?
Also, you should consider packaging up your original post and your additional clarifications from the comments into a new post which expands on your original post and goes into more detail.
I used resources from the links in your post as well as other documents I found by Googling (including ‘PetersonMI.FinalDraft.jb.pdf’) to pull together this comment.
I now plan to read ‘Written in Blood’ by Diane Fanning to dive in deeper, but the totality of evidence based on my initial research is already overwhelming…
LikeLike
These articles were always meant to be briefs, and the reader is welcome to dig into all the details. Yo can see that there is overwhelming evidence of Michael’s guilt because you delved into the details conveniently left out by the Staircase, etc.
The amazing thing is that Michael Peterson is free and going on with his life.
I cannot remember where I heard that about George Ratliff. It is a fact he “died mysteriously” in his sleep during the staging of the 1883 Grenada assault.
Someone, not me, suggested it was poison (cyanide or arsenic, etc.). Look what that does for Peterson, though. He wanted Elizabeth Ratliff and her daughters in his life, that’s for sure.
Just days before she died, Liz said she was having massive headaches and had an appointment to see a Dr. just a few days after her death. That’s suspicious at least.
I’m glad you noticed that Michael’s attorney was surprised and knocked off guard by the gay prostitute and other information that Michael never gave his attorney. That in itself speaks volumes.
LikeLike
Hi Rob,
Yes its nauseating that Michael Peterson is out free, and there doesn’t seem to be any hurry to get the retrial started.
Did you see the letter his sister wrote in Justice Mag (she initially supported Michael Peterson but over time turned against him) – link here – it’s a chilling read.
Cheers
LikeLike
That was a great link, Alpha, and now we see that Michael’s own sister had to admit his guilt, given the evidence. Scott Peterson’s blood sister, Anne Bird, also thought Scott was guilty and wrote a book giving 33 reasons why she thought so.
It’s very tough for a family member to see the accused as a murderer. People need to remember that Michael, as an officer in the Marines, claimed 4 medals that he never earned, having never even seen combat. That says something real important about the hidden life of Michael Peterson. The money was running out, arguments were rising. The night of the murder, Micheal is deleting things on his computer.
I guess all the cases involving NC State Bureau of Investigation analyst Duane Deaver will have to be re-tried and probably in the order of what year and month they were tried.
That will delay a re-trial for years, and NC may decide not to re-try Michael Peterson at all – but that would be a mistake.
LikeLike