| Name: | Isabelle |
| E-mail: | isabelle@cox.net |
| Comments: | Our partners : <a rel="dofollow" href="http://babit.chez.com/ativan/atlanta-ativan.html">atlanta ativan</a> is about atlanta ativan... <a rel="dofollow" href="http://schipa.mywebcommunity.org/atenolol/buy-atenolol-50-mg.html">buy atenolol 50 mg</a> is about buy atenolol 50 mg... You have pretty pictures. It's a very nice website!!! our site is also very cute. |
| Name: | Robert |
| E-mail: | robert@msn.com |
| Comments: | Our partners : <a rel="dofollow" href="http://bryan.latinowebs.com/percodan/percodan-percocet.html">percodan percocet</a> is about percodan percocet... <a rel="dofollow" href="http://decken.00go.com/norvasc/norvasc-composition.html">norvasc composition</a> is about norvasc composition... Very cool design! Go on! You may want to take a look at our site too. |
| Name: | Kadence |
| E-mail: | kadence@comcast.net |
| Comments: | Our partners : <a rel="dofollow" href="http://www.galeon.com/pielm/anavar/anavar-order.html">anavar order</a> is about anavar order... <a rel="dofollow" href="http://tyszka.20m.com/norco/cheap-tabs.html">cheap tabs</a> is about cheap tabs... Dont know if you remember me, but anyway very good work! Good luck to all from mexico. cu you all soon. Visit us at our site and have fun! |
| Name: | Ciara |
| E-mail: | ciara@msn.com |
| Comments: | Our partners : <a rel="dofollow" href="http://audio.ya.com/curso50/zovirax/roswell-zovirax.html">roswell zovirax</a> is about roswell zovirax... <a rel="dofollow" href="http://emirinki.8m.com/propoxyphene/">propoxyphene</a> is about propoxyphene... Hello, excellent design and nice site, best wishes from me! our site is also very good. |
| Name: | Lee |
| E-mail: | lee@rogers.com |
| Comments: | Our partners : <a rel="dofollow" href="http://abaco.ya.com/ladeprueba/valium/valium-mexico.html">valium mexico</a> is about valium mexico... <a rel="dofollow" href="http://agora.ya.com/dariname/ultram/minnetonka-ultram.html">minnetonka ultram</a> is about minnetonka ultram... Hello, excellent design and nice site, best wishes from me! our site is also very good. |
| Name: | Vance Holmes |
| E-mail: | webmaster@peterson-staircase.com |
| Comments: | Lou:
Todd eagerly tried to involve himself in this murder -- in any way he could -- but he had nothing to do with it. Todd was the first family member on the scene, having arrived shortly after the paramedics. From that moment on he attached himself to his father's murder. He was immediately uncooperative and combative with police and medical personnel. Todd was openly heard to disparage Kathleen, claiming she was a clumsy drunk and very accident prone. Later, he would be admonished by a judge for his belligerent behavior on the stand during a hearing. Todd said and did things, it seems, to make himself look suspicious, which he obviously thought would take the heat off of his dad. This was done out of a deep sense of loyalty to Michael -- not love -- LOYALTY. Unlike brother Clayton and the Ratliff girls, who often professed their love for Michael -- Todd remained all anger and bluster with no expression of true feelings. (Wonder where he got that from?) Todd conceivably COULD have entered the house at some point after Michael's murder, and then left -- but he was no where near the stairs. Todd had nothing to do with the murder of Kathleen Peterson. Detectives determined that nobody else was in the Peterson home at the time of the murder. LUMINOL testing proved that -- beyond the time when blood had covered the floors -- only one person was moving about the house. Once attacked, Kathleen never left the stairwell. Only one person tracked blood through the place, leaving shoe prints. That person was Michael Peterson . . . or someone who borrowed Michael's tennis shoes to kill Kathleen, quickly gave them back and then disappeared. |
| Name: | Lou |
| E-mail: | louisewcc@hotmail.com |
| Comments: | I started watching this documentary again, this is about the 6th time now. And I hadnt noticed before but at the begining, Todd mentions whent he police were there at the home after the 911 call....he said that he noticed "We" were being invetigated...."WE"? why would he say "WE". I always had a feeling that Todd had something to do with it, but I hadnt notice him say that before. And again its funny how when Michael talks about Kathleen and any memories of the death (Killing), he looks down and to the left ( a sign of lying) you watch anyone else recall memories, and they dont do that. The man is full of lies, you have to be if your whole life is a lie. |
| Name: | BM |
| E-mail: | bowels6@yahoo.com.au |
| Comments: | The introduction to 'Behind the Staircase' raises several valid points which I didn't fully appreciate, initially, until reading it again
Really has me thinking, now .. oh yes Countless hours were filmed by Lestrade, he claims. Not a shoestring exercise by any means. Not as if he was reliant upon merely one camera-man either, if the multiple perspectives revealed within the documentary are any indication. So, someone (in this instance, Lestrade) decided to produce a documentary. What -- he was just sitting around, cashed-up, camera-crews etc. ready and waiting (and on full pay, presumably) and voila -- out of the blue arrived the perfect opportunity ? What coincidence ! Amazing synchronicity ! Into Lestrade's lap, literally, falls a high-profile executive and more importantly (from Camp-Peterson's perspective) her 'wannabe renaissance man' spouse and purportedly 'fascinating' combined family Quite the opportunity --- for someone -- for several someones Oh, and look --- for a period prior, the ex-marine/author had been stirring the pot via a series of articles castigating those who (more coincidence) would ultimately decide his fate. So from the outset (proving life is stranger than fiction) Lestrade and his star had a pre-existing conspiracy-theory, i.e., ' the victim hero at the mercy of small-town, red-necks bent on revenge' No *wonder* Lestrade wasted no time getting those cameras rolling ! All so fortuitous ! So why does it all have that 'chicken or egg' feel ? As the prologue to 'Behind the Staircase' asks: how did Lestrade know where all this would lead ? Did Lestrade and his backers suspect the war-hero/author of murdering his soul-mate from the outset ? Did the war-hero/author devise (or perhaps offer ?) a convoluted plot/script guaranteed to justify Lestrade's outlay in time and money ? *HOW* did Lestrade and his backers KNOW that this staircase incident (ostensibly an accidental fall and death) would result in one of the region's most lengthy, expensive and publicised trials (rather than a sombre yet straightforward trip to the cemetery for Kathleen) ? HOW ? People do fall down stairs and die. It happens reasonably frequently. Usually rates a brief mention in the media I've listened to Lestrade proffer explanations as to why he was attracted to the Peterson case, but why do the explanations fail to convince the inner-ear ? Maybe the explanation is that Lestrade is actually psychic ? What else could explain his investment in a case which, on the surface, offered no hint of the sensational revelations to come (financial-woes, secret bi-sexuality, Liz Ratliff's German ghost, vanishing and reappearing blow-poke, etc.) ? Seems the only element for which psychic Lestrade was unprepared was the conclusion -- a permanently incarcerated war-hero/author Oh, and one other little hiccup -- the defection by the victim's biological daughter, who in turn exposed a hasty pay-out to the wrong party by the victim's employers and who also prevented the war-hero/author from profiting from what must -- earlier in the game -- have seemed opportunities of a lifetime (particularly from the incarcerated writer's perspective). Nice little kicker there :) All of which may well have compelled the producers of the epic to seriously revise the envisaged end-product ? The question now is - will Lestrade produce yet another version of the case ? It would be lucrative, at least, especially if it contained elements not included in earlier versions (which to my mind, sought primarily to assist MP's future appeals). There can be no further appeals now. Peterson's behind bars for the duration, we're assured. So perhaps now would be the time for Lestrade to eliminate his previous indulgences re: Camp-Peterson and also to ease-up on the sour-grapes editorialising -- and to present an unbiased documentary, rather than what currently stands as a thinly-disguised (and redundant)commercial for an extremely creepy individual and his (in my opinion) equally creepy nearest and dearest |
| Name: | Poetic*Justice |
| E-mail: | webmaster@peterson-staircase.com |
| Comments: | BM -- You are spot on.
Detectives determined that the murder of potential witness, Dennis Rowe, was unrelated to Peterson. Michael had, at various times, bragged about deadly connections to secret military groups. He made vague claims about having killed people. So after decades of murder and talk of murder, it's not surprising people speculate about the dozens of bizarre deaths surrounding Peterson. His military years alone are a fascinating blend of violent truths and horrible lies. To be absolutely clear though -- no evidence in the Rowe homicide connected the case to Peterson in any way. Oddly enough, I believe Dennis Rowe was born in the same town as Kathleen Peterson. |
| Name: | BM |
| E-mail: | bowels6@yahoo.com.au |
| Comments: | It's a mystery to me regarding why Maher would persist in attempts to exonerate MP. After all, Maher's facial expressions were the most contemptuous of MP during much of the Lestrade 'Staircase' mockumentary
I suspect there exists an unreported religious affiliation between MP, his original legal team, Lestrade and now Maher, which (imo) might explain the seeming insane determination to gain for MP his liberty. A vain hope, we're assured as of this date. However, I'm not completely convinced we've heard the last of MP and it wouldn't surprise me at all to learn that strings had been pulled at highest level at a later date, resulting in MP being secretly released There was a witness prepared to testify to MP's involvement in the gay scene, apparently. That witness was murdered. Would be interesting to learn the results of investigations into that murder. Brad will most likely never sleep soundly again |
| Name: | Poetic*Justice |
| E-mail: | webmaster@peterson-staircase.com |
| Comments: | Authorities never located Michael Peterson's murder weapon (or weapons).
The instrument he used to inflict deadly wounds to his wife's head was either very well hidden -- or more likely -- removed from the crime scene altogether. Evidence established that well over 2 hours lapsed between Kathleen Peterson's beating and Michael's 9-1-1 call. Michael loved to talk, but never offered an alibi to account for his missing two hours of activity. Forensic examination of the victim revealed blunt force trauma from a weapon that was long and thin. Experts also determined it must have been a relatively light-weight weapon -- since it left bone-deep lacerations but did not crack the skull. Despite several exhaustive searches, the murder weapon was missing from the property. Also missing from Peterson's property was the Peterson's fireplace blower/poker that had been a unique and treasured gift to the victim. The blowpoke had sat by the same Peterson fireplace for years. The mystery of the missing blowpoke was deepened when, at the end of the trial, Peterson's attorney claimed someone ACCIDENTALLY found the blowpoke in the basement while cleaning! The blowpoke presented was shiny and new without so much as a dent. Neither the prosecutors, the judge nor the jury were amused by the obvious stunt. It was later discovered that -- during the trial -- Mr. Peterson had purchased several blowpokes over the phone. |
| Name: | BM |
| E-mail: | bowels6@yahoo.com.au |
| Comments: | Diane, in April, posted the following: ' ... I heard again another point that proves MP's quilt. When David Rudolf was taking to MP on the cell phone after the blood analysis was done David said, "Whatever you used there is no blood on the blowpoke".'
I'm glad someone else mentioned this, because half an hour ago, whilst watching the DVD, I believe I also heard Rudolf say exactly the same thing to MP. For those who doubt this, watch the Staircase documentary. Rudolf appears to say this to MP after the blowpoke has been seized by MP's lawyers and examined by a man described in print across the screen as 'Forensic examiner' or similar. Rudolf and the defence team are intent upon learning if there is blood on the blowpoke. Once they've been told there is not, Rudolf speaks to MP by phone and it sounds distinctly as though he does say to MP, ' Whatever you used, there is no blood on the blowpoke' Until then, I'd admired Rudolf. After hearing the above however, my belief in what I'd felt to be his decency, integrity, etc. were shattered. Nor can I stand the Ratliffe girls, who brushed aside details of their biological mother's death with 'It doesn't matter', so intent were they, apparently, in seeing MP freed. The person I loathe almost as much as MP is his first wife, who repeatedly claimed to the defence team in Germany(before trial witnesses demolished her claims) that there had been 'absolutely no blood' at the scene of Liz Ratliffe's death. And doesn't that woman enjoy the sound of her own voice ! What a grim day it was for Kathleen and Liz Ratliffe, when they met MP. He isn't a tenth of the woman they were. And all his absurd pretensions of intellectualism, with his womanly face sucking on that preposterous pipe as he swans around Kathleen's house, drinking from Liz Ratliffe's crystal and enjoying being the star of the movie which he probably believed would swell his bank account once he was acquitted MP may enjoy exercising his female side, but a true woman he'll never be, for he and Rudolf failed utterly to grasp that no woman would subject herself to risk of sexually transmitted disease OR the indignity and betrayal inflicted upon her by her allegedly 'loving, bi-sexual' spousal 'soul mate'. Wonder if we'll ever learn the TRUE circumstances of Liz Ratliffe's husband's death ? Or was the truth buried by those same US military investigators who covered-up the real cause of Liz's death all those years ago ? |
| Name: | Oh My Todd |
| E-mail: | * |
| Comments: | Seems like Todd may be able answer that one.
He was a shady character around the cops and even had blood drips on his clothing despite "arriving" with the EMTs. He MUST know something. "On Todd Peterson's clothing, most of the blood was transfer stains and smears. But on the bottom right leg was one large drop of blood. To Deaver's trained eye, the totality of the stains was consistent with Todd carrying a large heavy object over his shoulder. That object must have had sufficient blood on it to drip down on his jeans." -- Written in Blood Furthermore the Dateline transcript says: "A blowpoke—a metal fireplace tool—identical to the one the prosecutor showed the jury. It had been a gift from Kathleen’s sister Candace. //Prosecutor: Did you have the occasion to see it in her home at various times when you visited? Kathleen Peterson's sister Candace: Yes, it was always in the kitchen, I used it, I observed Kathleen use. It was always in the kitchen.// In the kitchen, by the back staircase. But search as they may, the police never did find the blowpoke. //Murphy: A question for the jury is: “Well, where’s the weapon at? How does he hide it with police all around him?” Hardin: You’ve got to realize he’s got several hours that he can clean-up. And in my opinion, I think that it was removed from that property.// Was that why there was blood on the front door and a drop on the brick walkway? //Hardin: Someone with blood on them had to go outside during a relevant time period to this event.//" Concluding with words from the webmaster, strange behavior for an innocent man: "[...]Word first surfaced last week that Michael Peterson had purchased two blowpokes and had them shipped to his home by overnight air on Monday September 29. Several newspapers featured a quote from Alechia Maguire, manager of Hurlbutt Designs in Kennebunk, Maine: 'Someone identifying himself as Mike Peterson . . . left a message that he needed them immediately.'" |
| Name: | Hank |
| Comments: | Ok, webmaster. So, where is the murder weapon? |
| Name: | Poetic*Justice |
| E-mail: | webmaster@peterson-staircase.com |
| Comments: | All appeals denied.
http://www.peterson-staircase.com/appeal.html |
| Name: | Alison Borchers |
| E-mail: | borcersa@tabcorp.com |
| Comments: | Wasn't there going to be an appeal? Was that ever filmed? What was the outcome if there was an appeal?
|
| Name: | Poetic*Justice |
| E-mail: | webmaster@peterson-staircase.com |
| Comments: | Yes Elizabeth,
Michael Peterson obviously did murder his wife. There was nobody else in the home with Peterson and his wife when she sustained what the autopsy summary described as: "multiple deep, complex lacerations and avulsions to the scalp, multiple small abrasions and contusions on the face, early acute ischemic neuronal necrosis, and a fracture with associated hemorrhage of the thyroid cartilage in the neck." Very few people who read the autopsy conclude that Kathleen Peterson died as the result of some sort of "accident." Many would disagree with your assertion however, that Jean Xavier de Lestrade's film was "pretty unequivocal" about Peterson's guilt. In fact, creators of the supposedly real-life documentary went out of their way to obscure the facts and offer reasons to doubt the case against Peterson. Reporter Craig Jarvis, who covered the case for the North Carolina News and Observer wrote that Lestrade's movie has "no pretense of offering an even-handed look at the case." Jarvis also wrote: "The investigation and trial that unfold in the documentary is not the one I covered for nearly two years as a news reporter." |
| Name: | elizabeth |
| Comments: | I thought the film was pretty uneqivocal that MP murdered his wife. |
| Name: | Diane |
| E-mail: | dianestaud@earthlink.net |
| Comments: | Written in Blood by Diane Fanning has the best version on this case. You will come away with a guilty verdict after reading the book. |
| Name: | Theo |
| Comments: | Does anyone know of any books written on this case? I'd love to read them.
Thanks. |
| Name: | Poetic*Justice |
| E-mail: | webmaster@peterson-staircase.com |
| Comments: | To booyakahh@gmail.com:
1. How could a documentary -- presumably based on the real lives of real people involved in a real murder -- have any influence on a past murder trail? Well, for one thing, our system of justice includes APPELLATE COURTS. Secondly -- evil people would love to re-write history to empower themselves. A fictional movie masquerading as a real-life documentary can sway foolish, easily duped people in the court of public opinion. Apparently it worked on YOU. The fact that YOU watched nearly 8 hours of film on this murder case -- yet failed to find a single piece of evidence of the convicted killer's guilt -- is proof enough that the gullible and lazy-minded can be duped into believing deadly lies. 2. Who knows what documents were edited out of Lestrade's documentary? The victim's family, friends and loved ones know -- and everybody else familiar with Kathleen Peterson's trial is aware of the facts Lestrade deleted. The murder victim herself was left on the cutting room floor. Film documentarian, Lestrade, edited IN hours of Michael's monologues and misinformation -- but edited OUT anything pertaining to the actual murder. At no point does the documentary mention the main document in any murder case: the AUTOPSY REPORT. Read it. The AUTOPSY REPORT tells the shocking story of an on-going series of assaults by blunt force trauma to arms, neck, face and head. I'm sure you'll give it 5 stars! So yes . . . you did miss something. You missed a great deal. And your need to display your ignorance to the world is chief among them. |
| Name: | D |
| E-mail: | booyakahh@gmail.com |
| Comments: | I watched "The Staircase". I know that many people think this film came from a biased point of view and it very well could have been. Who really knows what may or may not have been omitted in the editing room. People should remember that this film had no intentions of influencing the trial. It was released after the verdict and might I add, for ENTERTAINMENT purposes. To judge the film as some kind of proof of innocence or guilt is a complete waste of time for anyone with a brain. You can't use edited material as proof of something in a court of law, so why would you use it as such here?
Having said that, as I watched the film, I was waiting to see something that would make me question his innocence but it never happened. "Guilty until proven Innocent"? I don't know because (again) I only watched a film based on the trial, not the actual trial. I had never heard of this man or the trial, so I had no idea what the outcome was and I was floored to see the "guilty" verdict because it seemed there really was no proof that he committed a murder. Again... maybe I missed something that ended up on the cutting room floor. I gave the film 5 stars out of 5 on netflix. That's all :) |
| Name: | Diane |
| E-mail: | dianestaud@earthlink.net |
| Comments: | I watched the video again and I heard again another point that proves MP's quilt. When David Rudolf was taking to MP on the cell phone after the blood analysis was done David said, "Whatever you used there is no blood on the blowpoke". Also Duane Deaver made a statement that said that her head has to be facing down and hit from behind for there to be blood spatter on the walls. If she fell down the stairs and hit her head her face would have to be facing up so the back of the head could hit something and the laws of gravity would say the blood would go downhill and not up splattering all over the walls. So she had to have been hit while facing the floor which is very inconsistent with falling down the stairs and hitting the floor or wall. |
| Name: | Mo Sketch |
| Comments: | I think it is a terribly small point to attack the bias of the documentary - particularly as it was released post-verdict. What about the TV coverage throughout the whole case? The daughter saying there were "significant differences" in the blow-poke, even though she couldn't have possible seen it? That's just one example... |
| Name: | Poetic*Justice |
| E-mail: | webmaster@peterson-staircase.com |
| Comments: | Great Question Bill! Yes, there actually have been a surprising number of murder cases with similar issues and evidence to Peterson's case. In fact, Peterson's prosecutors used another North Carolina trial ruling as precedent for inclusion of the Ratliff testimony. The case was the trial of serial husband killer, Barbara Stager.
There's Timothy Boczkowski, whose two wives both died in tubs. Also, there was the Peterson-like trial and conviction of Willard Purcell for the murder of his second wife in 2001. Purcell was suspected, but never formally charged with the murder of his first wife. Both women were found dead at the bottom of stairs. I'd estimate in the last 25 years or so, there have been between 10 and 15 cases very similar to the Peterson trial -- though none quite so bizarre. Some of these trials are covered on my site at the bottom of this page: www.vanceholmes.com/court/trial_mp_evidence.html |
| Name: | SC |
| Comments: | I've known about this case for a while, but I just recently finished watching Lestrade's documentary. I didn't like how biased it was but at the same time, it helped me to reaffirm my belief in Mr. Peterson's guilt. If you film a documentary trying to make a guilty man look innocent and the viewers come away from it unconvinced, then you've either made a really bad film, or he is guilty and no trick of the camera can hide it. And since it was a pretty good film, I vote the latter. Mike Peterson is just plain guilty, and here's 3 reasons why; (for all intents and purposes, these conclusions are solely based on the documentary)
1. The 911 call is staged. I believe this because Mr. Peterson claims he is by the pool when he sees his wife alive for the last time, yet when he comes into the house later and sees her at the bottom of the stairs, he calls 911 and when the operator asks him what type of accident she had, he says plain and clear that "she fell down the stairs." Now, how did he know this when he was outside when the accident occurred? I understand panic and how the mind works under those situations, but if I were to walk in and see my wife covered in blood at the bottom of the stairs, I would not assume she fell. I would assume something much worse happened and if the operator asked me what happened, I would say "I don't know, but there is blood everywhere!" and then maybe I would consider that she could've fell. I don't think anyone would see what Mike saw and assume it was from a fall, especially someone as intelligent as Mike Peterson. There is obvious premeditation. 2. There was just too much blood. This is an obvious one. No one with any sense would see that much blood on someone, that many head wounds on someone and say it was from a fall down the stairs. The defense claims she fell and tried to get up and fell and fell again. If someone fell and banged their head hard enough to produce that much blood, they would be unconscious. Not getting up over and over again. 3. Mike Peterson is a liar. On the 2nd disc is bonus material which has an interview with Mike behind bars. He talks to whoever is intervieiwing him and at one point, he gets choked up while talking about his son. This is how he really cries. If you watch it closely, it is obvious that the tears he sheds for his dead wife during the film is fake. He opens his eyes real wide. He lets the tears roll down his face. He can't even answer a simple question about how he feels or what he thinks about when he thinks about Kathleen. He just feigns tears and says he doesn't think about her. In the jailhouse when he cries (he's crying for himself by the way) it is different and genuine, up to a point, but starts genuine nonetheless. Mike Peterson did not love his wife, he only lied to her and then lied about killing her. So those are the 3 reasons. There are plenty more, but I think everyone knows them. I feel sorry for those who are in denial of his guilt. It's written on the wall, in cold blood. |
| Name: | bill |
| E-mail: | skcihy@yahoo.com |
| Comments: | Are there other cases like this out there? i want to compare this outcome to other cases? |
| Name: | Vance |
| E-mail: | webmaster@peterson-staircase.com |
| Comments: | Yes, I am biased against the murderer who now sits in prison for the rest of his life. Very biased. I make that clear up front -- that's the difference between this clearly subjective website and Lestrade's supposedly objective "documentary" of real life events.
If you don't have enough sense to comprehend the difference, then I'm not surprised you still have questions about a decade-old murder conviction. And by the way -- any questions you really want answers to -- can be easily answered by reading the testimony and reviewing the evidence. None of it is secret. The trial was held in public. This isn't a big, mystery movie with lots of puzzles to guess at. |
| Name: | H |
| Comments: | So after reading some of these comments it appears that I'm the only one who still isn't convinced of MP's guilt. Still just a lot of unanswered questions, I guess.
Also, I'd like to mention that you have no problem going on and on about how de Lestrade's docu is so blatantly biased (which I will agree that it is), however doesn't it seem to you that this website is equally as biased? Just a thought... |
| Name: | Poetic*Justice |
| E-mail: | webmaster@peterson-staircase.com |
| Comments: | Okay . . . one more time for RP in CA:
It's not about coincidentally knowing two woman who died from falling down the stairs. Neither woman in this case died from falling down the stairs. Okay? Study the autopsies. Both victims died from blunt force trauma to the head. That cannot be caused by a slip and fall to the ground . . . that's only caused by a beating. The coincidence here is knowing two women that were murdered by someone that tried to pass off the murder as an accidental fall . . . both times. |
| Name: | RP in CA |
| E-mail: | * |
| Comments: | Vance,
I'd like to address a couple points in your responses to my e-mail below and the response to "anonymous". Your first line to me states that nobody arques that it is strange for a person to know two people who accidentally fell down the stairs and died. I disagree with that asertion. That is the entire point of the prosecution introducing the Ratliff death in Germany evidence, to illustrate, "what are the chances a person is around two stairway deaths but not involved?" Nothing in Ratliff's death is evidence that Michael killed Kathleen (and I'm not saying he didn't kill Kathleen) except that Elizabeth's death could have provided him a model to follow for killing Kathleen. But to a jury, the introduction of this evidence makes them wonder, "what are the chances this must be a cooincidence?" that is why the prosecution wanted it in. In your response to 'anonymous' I couldn't agree with you more. You never purport to be objective as DeLaStrade does. While I disagree with some of your reasoning and personal attacks I admire your honesty. You created a web-site to offer your rebuttal to the documentary and were kind enough to offer a forum for people to express their views. For that I thank you. You have sparked debate amongst people which is the cornerstone of democracy. My main reson for visiting today is to ask those here about an article I found. It is located here (MSNBC) In the "Weighing evidence" section of the article it talks about Duane Deaver of the North Carolina SBI. Is that the blood expert called by the prosecution in the Peterson trial? I just thought it was interesting to see his name again. He appears to be a complete dolt in the documentary but it may just be good editing. Also I had never heard of the "N.C. Innocence Commision". I wonder if they will examine Peterson's trial, or if they have. |
| Name: | Patrick |
| E-mail: | earthpapa@hotmail.com |
| Comments: | I have just watched 'The Staircase' and of course found it to be very interesting to say the least. I was indeed surprised to learn of all the 'evidence' that was omitted in the documentary, which I learned here on this site. Even though it seems most people feel he did in fact kill his wife via a beating to the head, i can say that if I was a juror i would have had a tough time deciding. In 'The Staircase' Rudolf said something along the lines of 'would you be willing to bet your life on the idea that MP murdered KP..? If not, then how could they 'bet' on MP's life? Who could say for sure? |
| Name: | Elke Bell |
| E-mail: | bellelke@aol.com |
| Comments: | I had a wonderful teacher in 1973-1974 when I was in the 2nd grade living at Rhein-Main Air Force Base in Germany. Her name was Liz McKee and I just happened to Google her name 2 days ago and came across this horrible story. I have wonderful memories of lots of singing in our class while she played her guitar- mostly songs by Peter, Paul, and Mary. We adored her- she was so much fun. I was so shocked and saddened to read about the way her life ended. Her daughters were very young but I hope they have some of the same wonderful memories of her that I do. |
| Name: | Cozette |
| Comments: | This is a wonderful site. After I saw The Staircase, which I was absolutely riveted by, I looked up the case on the Internet to read more about it. I have now seen two other programs on it and read a great deal more. The Staircase is a beautiful piece of film, well edited and with a gorgeous soundtrack effectively used. But it is extremely, shamefully misleading and biased. It ignores huge aspects of the case against Michael Peterson, which is considerable. Of course, I thought he wass guilty after first viewing The Staircase, but I was not as solidly convinced as I was after reading more about it.
The Ratliff girls are fascinate me. They seem almost to resent these two women who they called "Mom" for being killed--resulting in the jailing of their precious father. They seem utterly brainwashed. The picture you have posted in the photo gallery of Liz Ratliff highlights just how much she and Kathleen Peterson looked alike. It gave me chills. |
| Name: | Aaron |
| E-mail: | houzhed@hotmail.com |
| Comments: | I watched all 8 episodes back to back. An awesome film about an awful crime. Mr. Peterson is lucky he wasn't sentenced to death... now he can rot in jail like he deserves! |
| Name: | Poetic*Justice |
| E-mail: | webmaster@peterson-staircase.com |
| Comments: | Lisa:
Spare your tears over the pathetic plight of Michael Peterson. He's alive and well. If you really want something to cry about . . . read the autopsy of his victim: Kathleen Peterson. |
| Name: | Lisa Coutu |
| E-mail: | tl39@roadrunner.com |
| Comments: | I wept over this. I will not be able to sleep tonight and this probably will haunt me for the rest of my life. I had hoped when the movie was over that I would find out he'd appealed his case and won. I'm heartbroken that that is not what happened. |
| Name: | katherine |
| E-mail: | piggymae@hotmail.com |
| Comments: | i just wanted to say when i first watched this movie and heard about this, i felt really bad and i also felt for her children. to michael peterson you are a devilish, mean, wicked and lowdown man and no one will ever forget what you did to this woman you deserve everything that has happened to you and i hope you are suffering as much as you made the children and the rest of your family suffer. |
| Name: | Jessica |
| Comments: | I am really curious to hear more from the kids. Do they still believe he is innocent? Do they have any contact with the daughter who changed her mind and believed MP is guilty? HOW in the world can those girls not doubt his innocence? This man killed TWO mothers to them.
BTW-Great website |
| Name: | Vance Holmes |
| E-mail: | webmaster@peterson-staircase.com |
| Comments: | Dear Anonymous:
My name is Vance Holmes. I am host and webmaster for this site, and I am responsible for the information contained on these pages. No attempt has been made to hide my name or obscure my purpose. Have a look around. I have to say -- every so often, someone (usually using a name like "anonymous" or "curious") feels compelled to comment about this site not being objective. Almost always they use the same twist, saying -- this website is no more objective than Lestrade's documentary. Well, this isn't a documentary! So the comparison makes absolutely no sense. This is a very pointed website, clearly aimed at exposing the truth behind Lestrade's Hollywood version of the Michael Peterson murder case. Lestrade profits from made-for-TV drama crafted to give the appearance of real life, but Kathleen Peterson's brutal death wasn't a scene from a movie. Unlike Lestrade's supposed cinema verite, my site's point-of-view is stated up front and repeated throughout. Murder is not something one can be objective about. Murder is evil. Michael Peterson is a murderer. Any person attempting to change facts or alter the reality of Michael Peterson's murder is part and parcel of his evil. Lestrade claims to have produced a "documentary" of real people in a real trial -- and yet he's left much of the real evidence on his cutting room floor. So Anonymous, you're absolutely correct . . . This site does not take an objective stance on Lestrade's world-wide release of a fantasy plot where Peterson was possibly innocent of murder or possibly denied a fair trial because he liked porn and male hookers. If you're unsatisfied with the facts of the case as laid out at this site -- go read the original trial transcripts and court appeals. That's as "objective" as it gets, and always, the same conclusion is reached: GUILTY. |
| Name: | Vance Holmes |
| E-mail: | webmaster@peterson-staircase.com |
| Comments: | Dear RP in CA:
You're very confused. You're confused about the FACTS and don't know what you're talking about. No one has ever argued that it's uncommon to know of two people who died from accidental falls down the stairs. The FACT is: neither Kathleen Peterson nor Elizabeth Ratliff died from falling down the stairs. They were both murdered. They were both PROVEN to have been victims of homicide -- not accident. Both women were found dead at the bottom of a stairwell which was -- oddly -- covered in high velocity blood spatter going up the walls. Both suffered identical lacerations to the skull, which do not simply appear by accident. In both instances, Michael Peterson was the person who discovered the dead bodies, called police and explained that the women had mysteriously died as the result of an accidental fall. Both times -- medical science proved him wrong. It is not a coincidence that in both cases, Michael Peterson was proven to have inexplicably told a series of bizarre lies to friends, family and authorities. Your "gotcha" attitude and guessing games are an insult. This is not an open-ended case with two possible sides. This is murder. Despite the impression left by Lestrade's picture show, the FACTS establish that there is no reasonable doubt Michael Peterson is guilty of murder. |
| Name: | RPinCA |
| E-mail: | * |
| Comments: | Ian,
So sorry for the loss of your friend and you friend's son. But you post does bring up a couple interesting arguements. What you are telling us is that is possible for a person to know two people who accidentally fell down stairs and died, such as tragically happened in your life, and have it be total coincidence. I am not saying MP is guilty or innocent (I don't know enough about the trial) but I am saying that your post both supports his innocence and guilt. On one hand you know two people who died falling down stairs and thier injuries were nothing like KP's, which shows that in your annecdotal experience, the injuries sustained by KP are inconsistent with your knowledge of death by falling down stairs. On the other hand, many who believe in MP's guilt say it is impossible that it is coincidence that in his lifetime MP knew two people who died falling down stairs. Those people say, 'that type of death is too rare, there is no way a person can know two people who died from falling down stairs and not be involved.' You, though not overtly, argue just the opposite. Your post destroys the belief that a person cannot have two people in thier life die by falling down stairs and not have had something to do with it (I am of course assuming that you did not have anything do do with those two stairway deaths you mention). |
| Name: | ian mckechnie |
| E-mail: | yano54@hotmail.co.uk |
| Comments: | i actually know a friend of mine who died falling down a staircase 20year ago.he broke his neck.none of the injuries kathleen suffered.i have another friend whos son died aged31 falling down stairs at home last year and also none of k.p.s injuries.both tragic accidents.peterson is a moron,and any one who thinks this guy didnt do it should return to "planet janet" |
| Name: | anonymous |
| E-mail: | anomymous |
| Comments: | I'm curious. I've only seen part of the documentary, so I have no personal stake. I'm literally just curious. This website is all about who is behind the documentary "the staircase", and yet, who is behind this website? Maybe this information is on the home page. But it seems strange to me that whoever designed and started this website doesn't say who they are, or what their own concern or relation to the people either in (or who made) the documentary. Makes it hard to find this website anymore objective than the documentary. |
| Name: | Rebekah |
| Comments: | Thank you for this website. As I watched the 8 hour documentary, I apprehended that I was being led by the nose by the Defense, but I was willing to go there, wanting to believe their side because that was easier to believe. That is, it's easier to look at the photos of poor Kathleen thinking that it was an accident rather than an act of familial violence. It was easier to see the family torn apart by an accident, than by calculation. I believed the defenses' assessment that he would be set free and was thus stunned when the verdict was guilty. Even at that moment, I knew that I didn't know what had really happened, but I wanted to believe him. In looking at the evidence here and on other websites, my journey of understanding has taken me to a less comfortable place, but I feel that I understand something more about the human condition and our perceptions by taking this journey, and I now believe that Michael killed Kathleen. It's the timeline and the red neurons that convince me, plus the financial motive that wasn't mentioned at all in the film. Thank you for filling in the information with documents and facts. I am NOT one to typically study crime, nor watch news stories about crime, but something about this story drew me in and I needed to understand it. |
| Name: | wayne reue |
| E-mail: | waynereue@bellsouth.net |
| Comments: | I hope I'm not belaboring the obvious but I think it's worth noting the following.
1. If any sane person entertains the notion that there exists, or could exist, something called a perfect trial in a court of law, they are delusional. As far as I know all the States have gone to great lengths to have their judicial procedures written so as to come as near to a fair trial as possible. I think North Carolina has been successful in this regard. 2. The adversarial system seems to be as good a check on the power of the State as anything yet proposed and will be used by the legal system for the foreseeable future. 3. Mr. de Lestrade's chosen career is the the making and sale of documentary films. While all film making is, at it's root a business, documentary films cannot hope to compete against major studios for viewer's dollars at box offices across the country. For that reason they use a limited budget to direct their efforts at earth science, animal behavior, etc. OR in this case, a controversial murder trial. For whatever (as yet unknown) reason, Mr. Poncet and Mr. de Lestrade decided to roll the dice and gamble their time and resources early on that the Peterson trial might have all the necessary ingredients for a sellable documentary. There was no guarantee. The principle characters and Mr. de Lestrade's gift for editing (biased thought it may be) made their gamble pay off as shown by his awards from the industry. My impressions of the trial: 1. There is no doubt in my mind that M. Peterson is a psychopathic murderer. My wife wasn't sure - strange. I think she was influenced by the loyalty and suffering of his children. I don't know. She just thought there was enough of a doubt that he should've walked. A tribute to Lestrade's editing. 2. Since M. Peterson is obviously an intelligent man, I would have thought that he would have been more imaginative in the planning of his wife murder. Drowning Kathleen in the pool, for instance, rather than a bloody beating. He must have a very low opinion of the intelligence of his fellow creatures. 3. Complaining about Lestrade's editing style really changes nothing. He made a profitable (I assume) documentary, I was entertained by his work and M. Peterson will spend the rest of his days in prison. |
| Name: | John E. |
| E-mail: | RuKoolEnuff@aol.com |
| Comments: | Comment to John Hain
John: Your comments about the American Legal System are intelligently presented and express the concerns of many United States citizens. However, having participated in many a trial process here in the San Francisco Bay Area I have noticed that Defense Attorneys often use the Voir Dire process to eliminate as many prospective jurors as they can that might have a more proactive vision of their impending trial; and rather settle for retired folks, particularly women, who may have a more sympathetic position for their clients. "Professional Jurors", or appointed Grand Jurors can be as disjointed in their perspective as any typical "Joe Six Pack" or "Sally Housecoat" jury. While it is true that complicated forensics testimony has been twisted and distorted by Defense attorneys since the infamous "OJ" Trial; it really boils down to the quality of the Prosecutors and their ability to present a tangible case of guilt. In the Peterson trial, I felt the forensic testimony was actually a bit weak at times, but Michael Peterson's lies to the EMT's, his distortion of his huge Debt problems, and the lack of any reasonable explanations for all of Kathleen Peterson's horrendous injuries overwhelmingly pointed to his guilt. With NO EYEWITNESS, circumstantial evidence is all that is left to convict most murderers. Michael Peterson was guilty as charged. |
| Name: | JOHN HAIN |
| E-mail: | johnhain49@gmail.com |
| Comments: | I am sorry to have to say this, but you seem to be as biased in support of the flaws in the current U.S. legal system as Mr Lestrade is against them. By what objective measure is our legal system the best in the world? The large majority of the experts you blithely dismiss are those of us who diligently observe, collect, process, and interpret critical objective evidence that regularly serves the needs our modern law enforcement and justice systems. It sounds like you distrust all experts as well as an independent judiciary (the State).
Inexperienced jurors are easily misled or confused by experts-for-hire (such as The Staircase's Henry Lee, Werner Spitz, and Jan Leetsma), whereas a panel of independent, expert, court-appointed jurors having expanded powers would eliminate their influence. Think about it and spend a lot of time in court. Not many of us who understand forensic science have much respect for the way juries are currently selected and manipulated by defense and prosecution. Truth and justice are not consistently being served by our system. It is my hope that other readers might add some comments to this discussion, because I think we as a nation do need to take a critical look at our legal system and reform it to meet our present-day needs and expectations for attaining justice fairly, wisely, and efficiently. |
| Name: | Vance Holmes |
| E-mail: | webmaster@peterson-staircase.com |
| Comments: | Mr. Hain:
While I appreciate that our legal system is often expensive, time-consuming and inefficient -- it's the best in the world. Heaven spare us all from the experts! The fact is -- a jury of "peers" assures the defendant that the State cannot both bring the charges AND decide the case. |
| Name: | Diane |
| E-mail: | dianestaud@earthlink.net |
| Comments: | I watched the video again and I heard something in the video to clearly points to MP's guilt. After the blow poke was found the defense team did a blood analysis on it to see if there was any blood on it. David Rudoph was talking to MP on his cell phone and MP must have asked him if there was any blood on the blowpoke because David said" No blood on the blowpoke". If you did not commit the crime and did not use the blowpoke you should not even have to ask that question. Why did MP even ask David that question? He was checking to see if there was any blood remaining on the blowpoke after it being cleaned after the crime scene. Watch it again and see if you come up with the same conclusion. Interesting! |
| Name: | JOHN HAIN |
| E-mail: | johnhain49@gmail.com |
| Comments: | Thanks for your thoughtful reply Mr. Holmes.
I agree Kathleen probably lived for some time after the lacerating head injuries, but strangulation is the likely method needed to "finish her off". It is important to realize that blood continues to drain downward out of the body from open wounds after death, making blood loss appear falsely massive. The fact she had distinct lividity on the back of the body (described in the autopsy report and probably evident on autopsy photos) indicates that she still had a significant volume of blood left in her blood vessels and argues against exsanguination over a long period. I have personally seen several cases like this where, much to the consternation of the assailant, the victim survives the initial onslaught and needs to be dispatched for certain. This brings me to another point raised in the film that I have developed a strong opinion about. One great observation stated by Mike Peterson was that the prosecution and defense tend to become more interested in the best strategies to win the case than in the best means of establishing the truth. As an expert witness in hundreds of legal proceedings, I have come to the same conclusion and believe our legal system needs to be reinvented to reduce the potential for bias, gamesmanship, money, delays, inexperience, and incompetence to obscure the truth. It is a travesty for trials such as Peterson's to have taken so long to adjudicate and cost so much of the public's time, money and attention, when the truth of the matter could have been reached simply, efficiently, and conclusively by means of a more cooperative or collaborative than adversarial process. I believe panels of unbiased, qualified, professional experts could replace traditional juries for the purpose of establishing the facts of the case. What currently takes many weeks, months, or years often could be accomplished in a matter of days or a few weeks, if collective expertise were brought together to assess and review evidence, discuss and debate relevant issues, and sort out the truth or most likely scenarios. Thanks again for creating this very illuminating website. If anyone is interested in continuing this conversation about jury reform, I invite you to make comments at my group website: http://groups.google.com/group/jury-reform. |
| Name: | Vance Holmes |
| Comments: | Thank you, John Hain,
There is no question that Kathleen Peterson ultimately died of blood loss. She continued to breathe long after sustaining her injuries. Please know that at trial, the now infamous blowpoke was not a central element. Prosecutors repeatedly pointed out to jurors that the evidence showed a variety of wounds to a variety of body areas. Bruises on her arms, a black eye, a fracture in the neck, a chipped tooth -- it meant Kathleen Peterson was beaten in different ways and for some length of time. The distinct wounds were the deep lacerations to the head -- which were not from a fall -- since they were positioned both horizontally and vertically. Prosecutors had early on introduced a duplicate of Peterson's fireplace tool. They noted that despite several searches, Peterson's blowpoke had inexplicably disappeared from the home. They established that the thin, hollow blowpoke -- or something very similar in size and weight -- was used to strike the top, side and back of the victim's head. The State always contended there was a matrix of striking, punching, strangling, beating -- and that the exact weapons and methods employed by the killer were known only to him. There were no witnesses to the crime. But it was up-close, personal and prolonged. Nobody really focused much on the blowpoke as THE murder weapon. Then a few days before the end of trial, desperate defense lawyers surprised everyone by bringing in their own blowpoke -- claiming it had just been finally found . . . in the garage! |
| Name: | JOHN HAIN |
| E-mail: | johnhain49@gmail.com |
| Comments: | My thanks to you for creating this website to present the crucial bits and pieces of the puzzle intentionally omitted by The Staircase "documentary".
As a practicing forensic pathologist, I was appalled by the apparent holes in the prosecution's case until I reviewed what was left out of the film. After viewing the autopsy reports, it becomes clear that Kathleen Peterson was beaten and then strangled (good neck findings without petechiae because of the abundant blood loss from the head injuries). The lack of classic cast off bloodstain evidence may indicate the impacting object was relatively short and broad (not a long club), and/or that the head was struck forcefully against an object or irregular surface. Had the D.A. eliminated conjectures about the blow-poker as the type of weapon used and focused on strangulation causing death instead of blood loss from scalp lacerations, the case would have been a slam dunk and the documentary without much controversial material. |
| Name: | Vance Holmes |
| E-mail: | webmaster@peterson-staircase.com |
| Comments: | John E:
Beautifully said. Much of the same inappropriate giggling and goofing went on in court. One day at trial, Peterson joked that "Todd did it." The entire family seemed hell-bent on making light of Kathleen Peterson's loss. But the clan -- particularly Peterson's brother, Bill -- isn't laughing any more. He lost a fortune on Michael's murder. I'm certain Lestrade left some footage on the cutting room floor that would be far more revealing of the family's true, day to day dysfunction. |
| Name: | John E. |
| E-mail: | rukoolenuff@aol.com |
| Comments: | I wonder if any of these defenders of Michael Peterson in Vance's comment blog, remember the scene where the surviving family is having dinner together to celebrate Michael's brother, Tom Peterson's birthday.
I was always struck with a sickening feeling, when Todd, MP's natural son, joked about the blow poke and the youngest child present, adoptee Martha, giggled uncontrollably at her step brother's insensitive and cold humor. In fact, even Tom Peterson, MP's own brother made a wisecrack about "Michael Peterson" masks being sold during the impending Halloween celebration. With her dry blood still coating that horribly stained Staircase just yards away from that very same dining room; one gets the impression how little respect this group had for Kathleen Peterson and the caring step mother she had been. She took in all these step children into her wonderful spacious home, and they are laughing and joking about her murder like it was a Sit Com on TV. Apparently Michael Peterson's own disregard for the women in his life, had apparently and sadly already rubbed off on his offsprings and adopted kids. Could anyone with a conscious knowlingly live in that house with her blood still coating the walls of that Staircase? Even the Producer of "The Staircase" commented on film, that he couldn't, he WOULDN'T, and neither would anyone else that I know. Okay, this isn't proof of murder. But it is HIGHLY indicative of a typical Sociopath Mentality type of Psychopath. And that, my friends..........is Michael Peterson. |
| Name: | Vance Holmes |
| E-mail: | webmaster@peterson-staircase.com |
| Comments: | Transcript quoted by STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS
DEFENDANT-APPELLANT'S BRIEF: "Defendant was wearing shorts and a shirt, and had blood on his clothes. [Tr. 4790]. Kathleen Peterson was laying on her back on the bottom of a flight of wooden stairs. There were towels under her head, and shoes, socks and paper towels near her body. [Tr. 4777, 4978]" |
| Name: | Vance Holmes |
| E-mail: | webmaster@peterson-staircase.com |
| Comments: | Jimmy:
My name is Vance Holmes -- webmaster and editor of this entire website -- including the comment page. I'm the person who deletes unwanted comments, and will continue to do so. However it's not me, but rather -- N.C. police and state prosecutors "making claims about paper towels." All the bizarre items found at Mike Peterson's murder were officially photographed, collected and logged. Anyone can easily locate this most basic information. GOOGLE IT. The bloody paper towels, in particular, were mentioned several times through the trial and were entered into photographic evidence. If you're truly searching for "some sort of source for that information" it should take you less time to find it than the time it took you to post your 2 comments here. You ask: "why was there no blood-spatter on the ceiling?" Jimmy, there WERE high-velocity blood drops discovered high up on the walls and a few actually did reach the ceiling. As for why there wasn't more . . . you'll have to contact Mr. Peterson. You ask: "how do you explain the lack of fracturing?" Jimmy -- the victim DID suffer a fracture of the thyroid cartilage in the neck. GOOGLE IT. While no skull fractures were found, the autopsy notes multiple, bone-deep lacerations on the back and top of Kathleen Peterson's head. But Jimmy, please understand a critical point about murder trials: speculation and conjecture from lawyers isn't proof of anything. Lack of certain wounds, lack of blood spatter -- or lack of anything defense lawyers might mention -- IS NOT EVIDENCE. If you want an explanation of exactly how this killing was done -- the one person who can answer your questions is the one person who was with Kathleen Peterson when she suffered blunt force trauma to the head and bled to death for hours in her own hallway: Nash Correctional Institution inmate # 0816932. |
| Name: | John E. |
| E-mail: | Rukoolenuff@aol.com |
| Comments: | Response to "Jimmy"
Picture this scenario. Michael Peterson slaps his wife Kathleen and she falls foward from the second step of the staircase and hits her head against the bottom stairwell wall. Attempting to get up he hits her with his hand once again, retires to the firefplace immediately in the next room and retrieves the famous blow poke. Still attempting to get up Michael pushes her down then places his bare foot on her upper chest and with his full weight steps down hard on her clavicle [the coroner reported Kathleen Peterson had a broken collar bone]. Then, through the opening area of the Staircase entry, Michael Peterson pounds his wife's head swinging the blow pole like a croquette mallet, laterally against her defenseless skull. The fact is Dr. Henry Lee, the defense team's forensic expert, never did seem comfortable explaining the seven laceration on Kathleen's skull nor did Peterson's own defense counsel. Lateral blows on the victim's skull would only spray cast off blood in the direction that Kathleen was left in a pool of blood. Remember, Jimmy.........Peterson LIED to the EMT's when he said he and his wife were only separated for a few minutes while he went back to the Swimming Pool to have a smoke. TRUE and EXPERT forensic testimony determined that Kathleen Peterson had been dead for nearly THREE HOURS, when the EMT's arrived and attempted to recuscitate her. This dude is GUILTY.....and he should have met "Ole Sparky", instead of living in prison on the public dole. |
| Name: | Jimmy |
| Comments: | I am noticing that someone with the ability to delete comments (so a person with some authority on the site) is making claims about paper towels, and there is reference to such under the "too much blood" section.
I would love to read some sort of source for that information. I haven't seen any forensic evidence that establishes such. I have to say I'm a bit curious why no one writing for this site attempted to deal with the defense's expert testimony. Put more simply, if it was a beating, why was there no blood-spatter on the ceiling? I also notice that every bit of evidence used to prove murder comes from 1) the site's writers claims about what the autopsy indicates, are any of you qualified enough that we should trust what you say? And 2) from the prosecution's interpretation of that autopsy. The defense did a good job of explaining how those wounds, or lacerations, could have occurred from a fall. If you think they were in error, exactly how did they fail? Also, how do you explain the lack of fracturing? After watching the documentary and doing some outside reading, I have yet to find a credible rebuttal to the expert testimony. All goofiness aside, and that trial was full of antics from both sides, I have yet to see explanations of the anomalies discussed by the defense. The only issue you chose to raise concerning Lee was the amount of blood then you attempt to slander him by pointing out that he was paid. Neither statement amounts to even a basic challenge to his claims. |
| Name: | louisewcc |
| Comments: | This is in response to BOSTON.... he probably didnt receive any injuries in his BLOODY attack on his wife, as she would not have had a chance to attack him, as she would have been trying to defend herself. Have you not seen her horrific injuries? How could she ave attacked him, stop trying to deffend this monster..... |
| Name: | Comment |
| E-mail: | calebmunson@tds.net |
| Comments: | How can you account for filmaker Lestrade's clear falsification of the actual circumstances of the murder? The setup of coming in to document a murderer and his tribulation at "being falsley accused" is such an absurd premise there has to be a story of their relationship that is not known except between them. Does anyone know whether Lestrade is homosexual or bi-sexual? |
| Name: | Poetic*Justice |
| E-mail: | webmaster@peterson-staircase.com |
| Comments: | Boston:
Michael Peterson refused to answer even basic questions from the responding paramedics at the scene of the murder -- let alone submit to questioning or a physical exam from authorities. The FACT that Mr. Peterson refused to cooperate with police does not make him guilty. But as you point out, he gave up any ability to produce evidence in his favor. Thanks! |
| Name: | Boston |
| E-mail: | boston.cote@gmail.com |
| Comments: | Did the Durham DA present any evidence of injuries that Michael Peterson may have sustained in an attack against his wife? (Cuts or bruises on his knuckles, hands, or arms?) If so, what evidence of injuries to Michael Peterson did the DA admit?
Thanks! |
| Name: | John E. |
| E-mail: | rukoolenuff@aol.com |
| Comments: | Vance: I thought you would be interested in this review I wrote at Amazon.com of LeStrade's "The Staircase" DVD set...
*********************************************************** "I purchased this DVD about 7 months ago and I must have watched all eight episodes at least ten times. By the time I had watched it the second time, I was convinced Michael Peterson was guilty; even before I found a great Website on the internet called [...] hosted by a fella named Vance Holmes. Vance has spent a great deal of time researching the entire trial, the victims, and Mr. Peterson himself and clearly points out all the discrepancies in this DVD. If you visit his Website first, you will be all the more drawn to purchasing this 8-chapter set. Just to KNOW this Peterson guy is GUILTY beyound a resonable doubt, then to watch him snake his way through the trial with his mock tears, and his innapropriate humour at times makes you realize this guy is the most self-centered, narcissistic sociopath that ever walked the streets of Durham, North Carolina. Not only did he murder his second wife, Kathleen, but it seems pretty obvious he may have murdered his first wife's best friend in Germany when she too was found bloody, and at the bottom of a long staircase. Top this all off with the fact that Michael is Bi-Sexual and had been carrying on multiple affairs with both women and MEN during BOTH his marraiges, and you will walk away thoroughly convinced he belongs in that Prison they interview him in on the last disc's "Special Features" addition vinnette. Still playing the pitiful role as the persecuted victim, this incredibly insensitve egotist is lucky he didn't meet "Old Sparky" instead of getting off with a life sentence with no parole. This documentary is a must see for true crime buffs, and a fasicinating study in how Peterson's own family and friends can be so blindly decieved by a master Sociopath who cares nothing about anyone but himself. Jean Xavier de Lestrade, "The Staircase" Director should throw his Oscar for "Murder on a Sunday Afternoon" into the Seine River for presenting Peterson as the "innocent victim of a prejudiced court and community" and go back to making commercials in Paris for French Laundries and skinny brown Turkish cigarettes. Although Lestrade simply closes his featurette interviews on this DVD with comments like "we just don't know what happened," the REST of us are pretty convinced Peterson should have got the "Chair" for murdering not one, but TWO women for who knows what reason but his own. Sociopaths don't always need a reason to kill someone......just a convenient dimly lit Staircase and a trusting soul as his next victim standing before him on those steps." ----REVIEW POSTED AT AMAZON.COM BY John E. |
| Name: | Vance Holmes |
| E-mail: | webmaster@peterson-staircase.com |
| Comments: | Several comments have been deleted since they were the repetitious raving and irrelevant rants of the willfully ignorant.
Simple respect for the dead and devastated victims of Michael Peterson's crimes should provide an understanding that ridiculous theories from couch potato criminologists and La-Z-Boy legal experts are inappropriate and insulting. However . . . this nonsense presents an opportunity to highlight some of the patently -- painfully -- obvious facts of this strange case. Above all else, bear in mind -- the "fundamental principal" of our justice system doesn't afford only the accused a presumption of innocence. The VICTIM is equally presumed innocent -- which is to say normal and not tainted by some bizarre mental, physical or emotional defect. 1. The autopsy establishing that Kathleen Peterson suffered sustained blunt force trauma to the head is direct evidence. This healthy, hard-working business executive didn't just forget how to walk up her own staircase. There's no REASON to assume she suddenly began frantically falling and flailing herself about in a fatal seizure. The VICTIM is presumed innocent of any reason to have snapped and beat her own self to death. Beyond all REASONABLE doubt, Kathleen Peterson was brutally beaten by SOMEONE. 2. Major items and microscopic materials left behind at the scene which are traced back exclusively to a particular murderer and his particular methods, means, motives and mistakes are direct evidence. A wide array of un-rebutted proof places Peterson with his wife in the stairwell -- both during and long after her vicious assault -- including the 10,000 tiny spatters of blood sprayed up and down the walls and across Mike Peterson's clothing. 3. The carefully crafted fabric of falsehoods Peterson fed his family, and the consistent list of lies he put out to medical personnel and law enforcement officials -- though not evidence of his murder, is direct proof of his PREMEDITATION. 4. When the circumstance is a vicious, bloody murder -- all a prosecutor needs is circumstantial evidence. Mrs. Peterson was ruthlessly beaten by SOMEONE, and clearly the dozens of injuries to her head, neck, hands and torso can't have all been been inflicted by accident. 5. Mike Nifong wasn't at Mr. Peterson's house the night he told authorities his wife had accidentally fallen. None of the "disgraceful" attorneys or unsophisticated jury members were in Peterson's stairwell at 2 in the morning -- tracking through pools of the victim's blood, cleaning portions of the walls with paper towels, or re-arranging objects and staging the crime scene. 6. In this particular circumstance, Michael Peterson readily admitted -- and repeatedly insisted -- he was the ONLY person at home with his wife when she was attacked for a period of, at minimum, 20 minutes and then left writhing and withering in agony for the minimum of 2 hours it took her to slowly bleed out. |
| Name: | Diane |
| Comments: | The motive was that Kathleen found out about the bi and was threatening him and the murder weapon was what was produced at trial. The blowpoke which I can't believe Rudolf would show the jury the murder weapon even though he said it wasn't the murder weapon. There is a pool there and it could have easily been tossed in the pool. I am a nurse that works in a Trauma Unit and have seen many falls and I can tell you from personal experience that you DO NOT get those kind of injuries from a healthy 40ish woman who was not on Commudin from falling down a couple of stairs! A good father? Son Clayton was sent to prison for 4 years for planting a BOMB at Duke University. |
| Name: | Diane Stauder |
| E-mail: | dianestaud@earthlink.net |
| Comments: | I totally agree with Terry. I believe M. Peterson's troubles go way back to the days of George Ratcliff. The one common denominator in a narcissist personality is the rage when feeling threatened. It is violent, uncontrollable, and deadly. Such in the case of;
O.J. Simpson Jeffrey MacDonald Betty Broderick After the assault the events are so mind boggling that the attacker literally wipes the event from their subconscious mind and begins believing that it was not him that did that terrible thing. I can't believe that the Ratcliff girls stood by this man. He was probably responsible for their orphanage status. They should seek counselling and try to reestablish their relationship with their biological family. |
| Name: | Poetic*Justice |
| E-mail: | webmaster@peterson-staircase.com |
| Comments: | Thank you, Terry.
While I fully appreciate your comments, I have nothing to contribute to the speculation. It's important to point out that no evidence exists that implicates Michael Peterson in the admittedly odd death of George Ratliff. |
| Name: | terry the curious |
| Comments: | Please read my third paragraph of questions and thoughts.
I watched the 8-part documentary -- riveted both times. How anyone watching Michael Peterson's behavior on film could deny his guilt is beyond me. And thank you Mr. Holmes for this website. I've spent the majority of today delighted to have seen all its pages. It is delightful to get to know a man who is refreshingly bold and honest. again, Thank you. I have a couple of questions and theories as to on developments throughout Michael's life. I think that he was involved with males sexually, if not earlier in his youth, then during his military days. I have wondered if his close relationship with George was also sexual. It was brought out that the couples were inseparable. There seems to have been a falling out between them (if I remember right prior to George's death). Has anyone done any signficant research into his mysterious death? Could this have been a murder by Michael. George died before his wife Elizabeth's murder. Michael was a frequent guest helping Elizabeth after George's death. It is possible that they could have had an affair but my gut instinct is the following. My thought is that Elizabeth found out about a sexual relationship between her past husband George and Michael (maybe even found evidence implicated him in George's death). It would be naturat that she would confront him alone not with his first wife Patty around. That Elizabeth had an argument or confrontation with Michael and on the staircase was the bitter end of that exchange with her possibly telling him she would make public the facts known to his wife and/or authorities. That would easily have provided the motive for Michael to violently murder her to protect his secret sexual life, possibly murder from his family and/or also the authorities. It fully explains why he would want to take in the children of Elizabeth and George -- guilt of one or possibly 2 murders. This theory seems entirely plausible to me. There is also the matter of the Ratliff daughters' Margaret and Marth's ages -- around 3 and 4 years and memories that could surface years later. Not only did Michael and first wife Patty receive monthly checks from the government for caring for the girls but a more complicated motive for Michael could have been that as the benefactor of the girls he would be able to mold them throughout their childhood to trust and love him. Where were the two girls during this vicous murder. My thoughts are that they could have been asleep upstairs and that any time in their childhood repressed memories could surface of what they saw or heard that fateful day. I do beliefe this sociopath was consumate at controlling people who allowed him to do so. Thank the heavens he is and was such a deplorably miserable liar. Sometimes there really is divine justice, LOL. I'd like to hear from you, webmaster (Mr. Vance Holmes) on this thread. Please. And if you do, I thank you. signed, Terry |
| Name: | bill |
| Comments: | I am a clinical psychologist and I have watched the documentary twice. Within the first half hour, I concluded I was watching a malignant narcissist, likely sociopath, and almost certain murderer. Whether or not the filmmaker intended to be sympathetic, Michael Peterson's own bizarre behaviors were caught on the tape. Of course the forensic evidence, completely at odds with Mr. Peterson's story, is what convicted him. |
| Name: | Diane Mashek |
| E-mail: | mashekd@mac.com |
| Comments: | I watched the trial on CourtTV and each time the documentary appears on Sundance I'm drawn to the internet to find something more. Today it finally dawned on me what the "something more" may be. I don't believe the final chapter will be written on this story unless Elizabeth and George Ratliff's
children Margaret and Martha come to understand the truth of what has been stolen from them. How in the name of God did this man manipulate all parties in order to raise them for what had to be a little bit of money? How did the family members of these girls ever allow that to happen? Will or no will it's very strange there wasn't a greater effort by the biological family to fight for these children and question the motives of "neighbors" wanting to raise these girls. I understand Margaret is a documentarian. I hope that through her profession she comes to understand who her real parents were and the truth that has to be acknowledged. |
| Name: | Helen |
| E-mail: | N/A |
| Comments: | If, from what I have read, KP fell down the stairs a number of times, would she not call out for her husband to help the first time she fell? And after the first fall, I know I would crawl for help not try to climb the stairs again if I was disoriented. I would call out or make an effort to summon my husband.
This is a facinating documentry. I watch it over and over again. And each time I am amazed at his seeming jovial attitude. If someone lost their "soul mate" as he did, would you want the intrusion? I would still be grieving and under sedation, yes even a couple of years later. No I'm afraid I believe he is guilty, mainly after hearing about how dry the blood was. And falling three or four steps, as I have done, does not cause such lacerations or that amount of blood. |
| Name: | Cheryl |
| E-mail: | cdaysh@aol.com |
| Comments: | I am watching documentary again. I had seen it before and also read Written in Blood, the true crime book. Although I no longer have the book, I can clearly remember being very struck by an incident reported in the book that ocurred while the Petersons were in Germany. A credit card or check was stolen from the purse of a friend of Patty's and an investigation revealed the culprit to be Peterson...poor Patty...
This seemed to me to be such a revealing tipoff to Petersons character, impulse control and criminal tendencies...and his total lack of caring about people...I've not read details of this incident anywhere but in Written in Blood...anyone else remember this? |
| Name: | Diane Stauder |
| E-mail: | dianestaud@earthlink.net |
| Comments: | Michelle. Read the book Written in Blood. You may get a different opinion. The key to this case is the red neurons found in Kathleen brain at autopsy. That is all the info you will need. Micheal didn't know about red neurons. |
| Name: | Tracey |
| E-mail: | tracey.milne@hotmail.co.uk |
| Comments: | Biased it might have been but I still came away from watching it thinking he was guilty! |
| Name: | I Vote Guilty |
| Comments: | In my mind he is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Proof lies in the scientific analysis of the forensic evidence:
Multiple lacerations with flaps of skin hanging caused by blunt force trauma to the head. The marks on her head were claw-like in shape. Defensive wounds to the arms and hands. Thyroid cartilage in neck was broken. Contusions on face. There was dried blood on the wall with fresher wet blood over it. This woman bled to death over a period of 30-45 minutes. The only thing that explains the dried blood under the wet blood is that she was alive after the first assault and he came back and finished her off. That also explains why she had blood on the bottoms of her feet. She stood up after the initial assault. The Red Neurons at autopsy confirm the gradual death with diminishing circultion ( decreased oxygen) to the brain. Michael Peterson initially said that he had gone out to turn the pool lights off and then came back in. If that were true and called 911 right away, his wife could have been saved. If the accident theory was a possibility, then why would he have taken time to wipe up the blood with towels instead of trying to administer first aid to his wife. He certainly had time to take off his shoes after tracking through the blood. If the intruder theory was a possibility and he came back in from turning the pool lights off, he would have seen the intruder when he came back in. I thought the 911 call was very telling. If your loved one is injured and you call 911, you are going to stay connected with them for dear life for any guidance they can give you in performing first aid to save your loved ones life until the paramedics arrive. The 911 operator said several times that help was already on the way. He would not answer her questions!! He acted like he didn't hear or was too distraught to understand. If she was still breathing like he said there would have been alot he could have done to administer first aid until help arrived. HE HUNG UP!!! He called back to say she was not breathing and HUNG UP AGAIN!!! I would bet his wife already knew about or suspected his bi-sexuality. It could have played a part in the motive if he and his wife had a fight and she threatened to out him or divorce him if he didn't stop it. But I really think the motive was money. He had no money, was in debt and she had a large life insurance policy with double indemnity I'm sure. I'm sure the weapon, maybe a blow poke or maybe something else, was disposed of somehow along with his bloody clothes. I doubt the blow poke that mysteriously appeared at the end of the trial was the murder weapon and I am sure it was planted. I would have voted guilty even if I had never heard the evidence of the other murder 20 years prior. Scientific proof is just that. There is no other possible verdict than GUILTY!! |
| Name: | RPinCA |
| E-mail: | n/a |
| Comments: | Poetic*Justice,
The more probable reason that Mike Peterson's defense team didn't introduce the intruder theory is that there was no evidence of an intruder (aside from the bloody, dead body at the bottom of the staircase). The defense cannot legally offer an 'alternate version' of events without some evidence of such events. That is why they used the 'fall' defense; it is the only other plausible explanation of what happened to Kathleen aside from murder. That is why the tire iron is interesting. Rudolf can argue that had he known there was a tire iron found in a neighbors yard he would have argued the 'intruder' hypothesis instead of the 'fall' hypothesis. While it isn't enough to get Mike off the hook, it may buy him a new trial. |
| Name: | Poetic*Justice |
| E-mail: | webmaster@peterson-staircase.com |
| Comments: | Peterson's defense team never once mentioned "the intruder theory." They couldn't, because Michael Peterson told police he was with his wife the entire night except for a few moments when he went outside to turn off the pool lights.
|
| Name: | john |
| Comments: | The appeal process is over...for sure! However MPs new attorneys have filed a 'motion' that states the prosecution/police did not disclose the fact a tire iron had been found near the Petrson house days after the death of KP. Apparently a neighbour found it in their back yard. So the jist of this revelation is, that if this fact had been disclosed to the defense, and they raised it in court to support the possibility of the 'intruder theory', it may have raised reasonable doubt in the jury. |
| Name: | Poetic*Justice |
| E-mail: | webmaster@peterson-staircase.com |
| Comments: | Dan . . . Please see the "Appeal Update" on the first page. There, you'll read that the North Carolina Supreme Court -- on Friday, November 9, 2007 -- rejected Peterson's appeal for a new trial.
The "Appeal Update" will also link you to the Supreme Court's written record of Peterson's denial. Peterson's appeal process has ended. All appeals have been flatly denied. It's over, Dan, and has been since 2007. |
| Name: | Dan |
| E-mail: | Dmagrino@hotmail.com |
| Comments: | I left a few Posts on this site in December.
They were up then taken down, I was asking if anyone had any information on MP new Appeal something about the DA not giving all evidence to MP defense team? |
| Name: | Danny |
| Comments: | I've seen the film many times and I'm in the middle of reading one of the books from the case and I still can't say that I agree that MP is guilty. I still do have alot of "reasonable doubt" in my mind. I guess the jurors didn't, which is what really matters though.
MP is convincing (at least for me) at what he claims happened and in the 911 call. If he acted that whole thing out, he should win an academy award for his performance. Then the autopsy of both woman that states they were both murdered. However, keep in mind that both were done by the SAME medical examiner working in co-op with her prosecution buddies. I stil don't understand for the life of me why the State didn't have a neutral party perform the Ratliff autopsy in TX. At the very least, I think the State and the detectives working the case along with the medical examiner had some other motive. Now for the judge. Why in the world would he allow the Germany case into this one is beyond me. It had no bearing as to the facts in THIS case. If I had an accident 17 years ago that fatally injured someone and then had a similar accident 17 years later, how in the world would the first one figure into the second one? I just don't get it. As far as KP wounds go, falling down stairs is so unpredictable. The angles of the stairs, the force as to where and what she hit. Remember there was a metal wheelchair lift that can cause similar wounds if she fell from at the correct angle at the proper force. None of us are experts in staircase falls, I don't think there's any detective course on them last I checked either. It can vary so much that alot of her wounds CAN be explained. I've always thought that KP falling walking back down the stairs made alot more sense than what Rudolf came up with, that she fell going up the stairs. That really doesn't make to much sense, at least for me. But if you figure she fell going back down the stairs, after making it upstairs, alot of variables come into play that CAN explain these wounds. She might have injured her head alot more on the initial fall down several steps, accounting for the majority of the lacerations, then regained conscientious a few minutes later after some blood had already pooled under her and had a second, less brutal fall but producing enough damage to account for the remainder of the cuts. Then bled out after 45 minutes or so. Don't crucify me for having an opinion that doesn't agree with the majority of the posters here. I just think these things COULD have happened. It's possible and no one here can say for sure that it's not. Most of you are taking the KP autopsy report as the pure truth. The cause of some deaths are not easy to identify. I know first hand that this is true. So why is everyone putting so much faith in this M.E.? People do make mistakes and she easily could have made a mistake or rush in judgement here. Like someone else stated here, it can be more of an art than a science sometimes. Just because she's refered to as a doctor doesn't make her infallible. Just my 2 cents....Thanks for reading |
| Name: | Poetic*Justice |
| E-mail: | webmaster@peterson-staircase.com |
| Comments: | I agree, Rod . . . it's quite telling that this mayoral candidate, millionaire man-about-town and military silver starred medalist is inexplicably hysterical when his own wife needs assistance.
Michael Peterson suddenly becomes as inexperienced and confused as a frightened 4-year-old -- unable to even make a coherent phone call for help. Despite all the babbling, he never once mentions the spatters, smears and swipes of blood covering the floors and walls up to the cieling. Michael Peterson's bizarre acting performance during his 9-1-1 phone calls is proof that he's a motivated liar. He's caught on tape attempting to sell fiction to authorities with a story about his wife's staircase "accident." Coming two or more hours AFTER medical examiners have determined Kathleen Peterson suffered blunt force trauma to the head, the 9-1-1 calls also prove Peterson purposely delayed getting help. When he DID phone authorities at 2:30 in the morning, he frantically began putting out details of an "accidental death" -- details that were contradicted by paramedics within the hour. First responders to the dispatch about a fall down some stairs were stunned to come upon the scene of an obviously "very dead" woman laying in a hallway splattered with enormous amounts of dried blood. |
| Name: | Rod |
| E-mail: | rodneyc2@verizon.net |
| Comments: | From the very beginning with the made-up hysterics of the 911 call - by a Marine veteran of battlefields - I doubted MP's veracity. Then to hear his account of the time spent with K by the pool, with many irrelevant details - or factoids - in his attempt to create a reality - all shared with the camera (and so with the world) but not with the police who are trying to find the facts about this accident or murder, and who would have pressed him with the right questions. Why is it that in so many of the complete murder trials broadcast we hear a supposedly hysterical, unintellible 911 call? It is a clue in itself. |
| Name: | Julie |
| Comments: | Vance says: "One picture's worth a thousand words, and this family's decision to capture such dark and demented behavior on film, speaks volumes."
Yes, exactly. And why would any family allow a camera crew in their home during this horrific episode, to capture on film the blood stained walls for all the world to see? Thus making my point about the filmmaker of the documentary: He couldn't possibly have thought he was making a film that backed up Peterson's ludicrous fairy tales. It surely must have been as obvious to him while he was making it as it is to any viewer of the film with even the slightest bit of acuity, that Peterson is lying, and that he's guilty of murdering his wife. Upon viewing only four segments thus far of the Sundance documentary, I can say with certainty that it is decidedly NOT a pro Peterson perspective. It just simply is not. No, it does not include all of the facts of the case, and yes, it does show Peterson and his family members claiming innocence, but as any educated person can surmise, this is most certainly not a film that implies in any way that Peterson is innocent. I also don't think it pretends to be a legally accurate piece of work -- it certainly was created and exhibited for entertainment purposes. And guess what? Having known nothing of this case before a few weeks ago, I am absolutely mesmerized by this film. I am so fascinated by it that I can't get enough information on the case now. That's why I came to this website and why I thought it significant enough to post these comments. It's a very disturbing, but highly compelling dissection of a sociopath, disguised as a suburban, pseudo-intellectual, family man. I wonder if you have communicated with the filmmaker? Have you? I'd really love to hear his response to your accusations of his having created a slanted piece. Even if it turns out to be true that they knew each other previously, I still maintain that a perceptive mind cannot possibly walk away from this film thinking the filmmaker believes this man is innocent. |
| Name: | John |
| Comments: | Finally, somebody brought this up: I had no idea, until I came upon this site, that the filmmakers were in anyway, associated with the defense or on the side of the murderer. The documentary is SO SO SO obviously telling the story of a smug man who is trying to get away with a horrible murder. It's just so apparent. What documentary were all those people watching? It is so blatantly a portrayal of a murderer. It could have been shot by the prosecution and shown as evidence in the trial. Yes, Peterson keeps claiming his innocence in the film. But that doesn't make the film slanted. Just look at him and listen to how he speaks! How can anything be so misinterpreted???!!! |
| Name: | Poetic*Justice |
| E-mail: | webmaster@peterson-staircase.com |
| Comments: | Michael:
Your comments are so shallow and confused they're really not worth addressing. Nonetheless, I will take this opportunity to point out some of the very obvious facts about this murder that any reasonable, rational person would immediately grasp -- just to touch base with REALITY. Kathleen Peterson's autopsy shows a matrix of 38 distinct wounds. All of the major injuries were to the upper portion of her body -- her head, face, neck, arms and hands. You say you take the autopsy "with a grain of salt" -- yet you admit you haven't even bothered to read it. That's just silly. You ridiculously claim "none of us were there, so we are all guessing" when the truth is: Michael Peterson was there. We don't have to guess because Peterson told authorities he was by his wife's side the entire night except for a few moments when he went outside to turn off the pool lights. Instead of writing second guesses and spouting opinions on something you know nothing about, try reading, reviewing and reflecting on reality. You say "Let's assume KP was alone" and "let's assume for a moment KP did fall repeatedly" as though this is a parlor game where you score points by making up new twists in a pretend murder mystery. The reality here is that the victim was NOT alone when she suffered blunt force trauma to the head. Michael Peterson was there. Even if Kathleen Peterson did somehow manage to fall and get up, and fall and get up, 5 or 6 times in a row -- the evidence proves she did not die from those falls. She bled to death over the period of several hours. Read the evidence, then if you still want to play games -- guess why Michael Peterson waited until 2:30 AM to call for help when the autopsy shows his wife suffered severe blood loss some time before midnight. As for the lame defense argument about how other beatings have resulted in skull fractures, I simply say this: statistics about other gruesome murders are not relevant to this one. In this particular case, the dead victim's skull had not been fractured. If you'd actually read the autopsy, you'd know that in this case, Kathleen Peterson's skull was found to have at least 7, bone-deep lacerations. Clearly then, the evidence indicates this killer didn't bash his victim's head with a heavy object as other killers apparently have. And by the way, the lack of any skull fracture actually indicates that Mrs. Peterson did not "fall repeatedly" on the hard, wooden steps. It's worth noting that -- in this particular case -- the victim DID sustain a fracture, not to her head, but rather a "clothesline" fracture to the front of her neck. No other fracture or even bruising was found on the victim's back or legs as one would expect had she repeatedly fallen down. Needless to say, where it concerns the murder of a human being, I'm far more than just indignant about your silly assumptions and ludicrous guessing games -- I'm deeply offended. For the record: Michael Peterson was drenched in his wife's blood. All legal appeals have been denied. |
| Name: | Michael |
| Comments: | I have spent my afternoon perusing this site off and on and thought I would add my 2 cents.
I found this site while googling 'The staircase' as I watched it several years ago and was curious to see whether Michael's appeals were successful. It has been several years since I watched the documentary, however, I remember clearly that I was outraged at the guilty verdict at the time, though after some further research came to the conclusion that MP was most likely guilty. Following the principle of Occam's razor we would have to deduce that MP was sprung in the middle of the night doing something he shouldn't have been doing, a fight ensued where KP threatened divorce or similar and he whacked her over the head killing her. It is the most logical scenario I can figure. But does that mean that is what happened? Bizarre things happen all the time. Really bizarre things. I recall that the one fact that led me to believe in MPs innocence while watching the documentary was the absence of skull fractures in the victim whereas, taking this figure from another posting, "all 268 deaths in the state by beating to the head had caused skull fractures". If my memory serves me correct the prosecution were never able to adequately rationalise this point. Our passionate host here points repeatedly to the autopsy as proof of homicide. Now I haven't read the autopsy but must confess I take these things with a grain of salt. An autopsy is not an exact science. It consists of judgements based on the available facts which are unavoidably incomplete in every case. Now I am not arguing that the autopsy is wrong, just entertaining the possibility that it could be wrong. Let us assume KP was alone at the time of the incident. No autopsy could ever definitively determine exactly what happened. Let us assume for a moment that KP did fall repeatedly, is it not possible that she fell a number of times at awkward angles inflicting these injuries upon herself. I don't know the answer, maybe it is impossible? Drop a tennis ball a dozen times from a point on your stairs at home - the possibilities of where it ends up each time are vast. I understand analogies are relatively meaningless for points of comparison, but life is random and impossible to predict definitively. On a different point, if MP did inflict the wounds no doubt blood would have splattered over his clothing. Was this addressed in the case at all? Did he change clothes? I am interested to hear from others on my comments, including those who will shoot me down for raising my own doubts. Just spare the indignation, none of us were there so we are all guessing, including the coroner. |
| Name: | Vance |
| E-mail: | webmaster@peterson-staircase.com |
| Comments: | First of all . . .
Yes, this site is extremely biased against murderer Michael Peterson and his movie man, Jean-Xavier de Lestrade. That's glaringly obvious from Page One. The site was specifically designed to debunk the film's fantasy version of Kathleen Peterson's very real death and to set the record straight about the massive amount of evidence that got Peterson convicted at trial -- much of which is missing from the movie. No more brilliant deductions about how this website is biased will appear in these comments. Secondly . . . Michael Peterson told authorities his wife died at the bottom of a bloody staircase in a bizarre accident.The fact that he later claimed Elizabeth Ratliff had also died at the bottom of a bloody staircase in a bizarre accident, was the only reason the German case was introduced. What are the chances of such a duplicate death? Lastly . . . The jury isn't asked about the defendant, but rather, they're asked whether or not there is a reason to doubt the State's case. Kathleen Peterson wasn't a character in a movie. She was a real victim of a real murder. The fact that you've "seen the movie" and "read the website" is nice for you, but it's not the same thing as sitting on the jury in a 4 month trial. |
| Name: | Dan |
| E-mail: | Dmagrino@hotmail.com |
| Comments: | "BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT"
Keep in mind your doubt Must be Reasonable. That is what the jury deliberates with each other; the reasonable part of doubt. It is not as simple as walking into the jury room as saying " I have a reasonable doubt" =============== Although I believe he is Guilty as charged. I do have one big problem with this man's trial. If Michael Peterson was convicted of the crime in germany, served his time and was released, it could not be introduced at the trial. It would be considered at sentencing, but not allowed at trial (at least not in New York). It seems like this is a very serious "loop-hole". I have real problems with this part of the trial. Even when I read the books on this case, most of the writting is about Germany, and then what happen in the US. ============== The reason I believed he killed her, is by his actions. I mean he actually tries to Intellectualize the whole legal process. If what you need for a murder conviction is for the victum to come into court and say he is the man that killed me ( as was the case in the 80's) then I guess the case against Michael was not proven. But otherwise it was. |
| Name: | Rolf |
| Comments: | The one thing that sticks out in this case is this: the jury is charged with reaching a verdict that "BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT" Peterson killed his wife. I find it incredible that the jury thought that the prosecution had shown that the defendant had "BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT" killed his wife. Regardless of truth, justice in the courtroom is predicated on the supposition that the verdict is determined "BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT". As such, ask yourself-- do you have any doubts whatsoever? If you do, then you are bound by court instruction to find the defendant NOT GUILTY. |
| Name: | Poetic*Justice |
| E-mail: | webmaster@peterson-staircase.com |
| Comments: | Chris D.
Thank you for writing. I appreciate your points, but I'd like to address the major item. You said, ". . . no substantial evidence can be found to prove either the innocence or the guilt of Michael Peterson . . ." But that's simply not the case. There's plenty of evidence proving Michael Peterson murdered his wife -- starting with the lies he told about how she died. The night of Kathleen Peterson's death, Michael readily admitted he was the only person with his wife and never suggested he'd seen a burglar, a homicidal maniac, an angry owl, or any other killer in their home. At 2:30 in the morning, Michael called police and simply said his wife "fell down the stairs" and needed help. When paramedics arrived they were shocked to find the supposed victim of a fall lying dead and surrounded by vast amounts of blood. The medics immediately noticed that, despite their prompt arrival, much of the blood covering the walls had already dried. Asked what possibly could have happened, Michael told the paramedics his wife must've just fallen down the stairs, because he'd only left her alone for a few minutes and returned to find her on the floor, unconscious and barely breathing. Later, when Kathleen Peterson's autopsy revealed the presence of red neurons in her system, police had enough medical evidence to prove that Michael was lying. The red neurons established conclusively that his wife had been severely injured long before he ever phoned for help -- perhaps as long as two hours, during which time, she continued to bleed out. The main evidence that Kathleen Peterson was murdered is in her autopsy. She died as a result of blunt force trauma to her head, face, neck, arms and hands. Blood patterns and staining showed she bled as she was beaten -- causing her blood to be spattered up and down the stairway walls. Michael's own expert testified that there were over 10,000 blood drops spattered throughout the stairwell. Science proved Kathleen Peterson's death was no accident. It was a homicide, and a very brutal one at that. While it's true that anyone -- or any thing -- could've been responsible for Kathleen Peterson's vicious slaying -- starting from the very night she was murdered, Michael insisted he was the only other person in the home and that he'd been by his wife's side for all but a very few minutes. |
| Name: | Chris D. |
| E-mail: | lycaon_ayr@yahoo.gr |
| Comments: | First of all, congratulations for your excellent and very informative website, I have just finished reading the entirety of it after watching the Staircase documentary. I also did some online searching, and I've just seen there's an update on the owl hypothesis CF mentioned in July. In an article by newsobserver.com it says that a microscopic feather has been found "mixed in with hair that Kathleen Peterson had clutched in her left hand" and that feather is supposed to be found on the bird's talons. It does seem a bit of an unbelievable story (I'm not sure exactly how far the pool is from the stairs in Peterson's house, but an owl attack would surely produce an increased amount of noise comparing to a supposed at least, fall). Anyway, what seems to make this case amazing and non-ending accordingly to my first glimpse of it at least, is that no substantial evidence can be found to prove either the innocence or the guilt of Michael Peterson, as both the cold blooded murder and accident theories have some big holes that make these people like Truthaboveall and Larry Pollard (the owl-theory guy) search for alternatives (alright, not claiming that the Pollard guy is objective though). However, there's one thing that David Rudolf mentioned in the movie and I believe you should put some more thought into it: sure, the death of Kathleen doesn't seem to be explained by an accident, sure Peterson hasn't succeeded in proving his innocence, but would you put a man to jail until his death because he PROBABLY killed her? That's a big question, and I don't feel ready to answer something like this myself yet. It's a question of society's itself in the end, do we want more free men who have commited crimes walking the road or more innocent men inside the prison? Anyway, these are my thoughts and thanks for reading them, I apologise for my mediocre english but it's not my mother language.
best wishes, chris |
| Name: | Kate |
| E-mail: | towhee69@yahoo.com |
| Comments: | First of all, thank you for this website, for your deep insight and knowledge about this horrible film, the case, and for defending Durham and its residents. I was completely ill prepared for this film, but curious to see it. When I did,what I saw sickened me. It was a disgustingly imbalanced clearly making MP the victim and not Kathleen. I have a question... what did you think about Henry Lee's input? Do you think he believed MP to be innocent? Although I don't know him, I felt like he is a thorough, honest person. With all that in mind, do you think he used his knowledge to give the defense what they needed? I don't think he compromised himself, but I feel that he leaned toward the defense teams theories and described the scene if it were an accident. I didn't feel like he really believed it to be an accident. . What do you think? Thanks, Kate |
| Name: | Poetic*Justice |
| E-mail: | webmaster@peterson-staircase.com |
| Comments: | It was Peterson's oldest son, Clayton who claimed to have found the missing blowpoke, not Todd. But to be absolutely clear, neither son was ever charged -- or even implicated -- in the murder of Kathleen Peterson.
Evidence at the crime scene clearly established that only one person was with Katheen during her brutal bashing on the staircase. For example: LUMINOL testing showed that only one set of footprints was walking about and tracking blood through the house. The person walking around was either Michael Peterson or someone wearing Michael's shoes. When police arrived, Peterson was barefoot and had placed his shoes near the stairs. There are other things that prove he acted alone, but the bottom-line here is that Michael was the only person police ever accused of being involved with the planning and killing of Kathleen Peterson. There's no reason to believe his children were part of the crime and it's simply unfair to say otherwise. |
| Name: | CF |
| E-mail: | bobkatbug@bellsouth.net |
| Comments: | Catherine, I agree with you. I also love the way you describe the Ratliff girls as "goofy"...you got that right.
The girls don't even know how old they were when their birth mother died. Margaret was born in Dec. 1981, Martha in Jan. 1983. However, all through the film it was stated that the girls were "two and one" years old when their mother died in 1985!! Martha stated that she "was a little over a year" at the time! Is she stupid? When Elizabeth Ratliff died in Nov.1985, Margaret was almost four and Martha almost three. Looks like the documentary could at LEAST have gotten that right, or the girls could have done the math themselves. Any theories on what gives here? I've always been curious about those girls, who call Michael Peterson "dad". |
| Name: | Catherine |
| E-mail: | cthktt@comcast.net |
| Comments: | Your combined insight into Peterson's murder of his wife is fascinating, particularly the deplorable imbalance found in the French film. But I find it possible that Peterson's son, ostensibly out on a date that night, could have murdered his stepmother. He had maxed his credit card and had a couple of DUIs. He was, in short, spending too much of her money. In any event it's a possibility, particularly since his father would not let him take the stand after he "found" the blowpoke, that he could have hit her on the back of head. Perhaps she made some remarks about not letting him have more money. This hypothesis would account for the stupidity of Michael Peterson's actions after the murder, i.e., calling 911 after Kathleen's blood was dry and doing that big fake job about her being alive, etc. In any event I believe money was the basis for the murder, not his bisexuality.
deLestrade's film is further weakened by his lack of direction. He certainly did not expect the Peterson's bisexuality nor the explicitness of the E-mail. Nor could he foresee the previouns staircase incident, which he did not cover with depth. What is disastrous about deLestrade's documentary or his "mockumentary" of America and Durham is that it is so evident that he is slanting his material, that he lets Michael Peterson pontificate too much, that he makes it seem that his defense team think everything is funny, and that he spends so much time on those goofy girls, Michael's stepchildren. Anyway the documentary is so poor he ought to make another one, an honest one. |
| Name: | Poetic*Justice |
| E-mail: | webmaster@peterson-staircase.com |
| Comments: | Juno:
You've completely summed up every aspect of the situation with the sentence, "To portray the family as idyllic is asking for someone to come along and expose the lie." Said even simpler: Evil tells on itself. That applies not just to individual family members and over-all family dynamics, but also to Michael Peterson's trial strategy and even to the murder itself. Over and over the pattern is repeated where a big, obvious lie is presented as truth, which then demands the lie be ripped apart and exposed. Evil tells on itself, because it's not the crime -- it's clinging to the cover-up. Having listened to Martha and Margaret's nonsense in the press and in Lestrade's movie -- it's impossible to pity them. Although Peterson never actually adopted the sisters, he's the closest thing to a "parent" they ever had. If they were silent standers-by, nobody could really fault the orphans for maintaining some level of loyalty. But when both college-aged women choose to boldly and forcefully continue to assert falsehoods -- they are complicit in Peterson's evil. That's way beyond the "Stockholm syndrome" and more akin to a "Nuremberg syndrome" of malignant denial. Similarly, youngest son Todd has gone out of his way to obstruct the truth and obscure reality. He's also been determined to insult Kathleen Peterson's daughter, family members and friends. Right away Todd claimed, "She got shit-faced and fell." Immediately following her murder, Todd dedicated himself to the destruction of Kathleen Peterson's memory in a terribly misguided attempt to make his Dad look (somehow) less guilty. Clayton Peterson's substance abuse problems and prison woes are his own sad business. We've all made mistakes, so nobody can single him out for having a troubled past. However, when Clayton chose to insert himself in his father's murder case and announce that, after multiple exhaustive police searches, he'd accidentally discovered a blowpoke casually sitting in the garage -- he chose to invite inspection into his credibility and judgment. Years after Peterson's guilty verdict was handed down, Clayton continued to claim his father was innocent and that perhaps an owl had attacked his stepmother and left her to bleed to death on a staircase. But most shocking and shameful is Michael's first wife, enabler-in-chief, Patty Peterson. Her deep involvement in covering, concealing and encouraging Michael's evil goes back for decades. Seemingly the sole survivor among Michael's soulmates, the reality is -- Patty died long before her "best friend" was murdered at the bottom of a staircase in 1985. Whatever one thinks of Lestrade's movie, the fact that the Peterson klan agreed to put their outrageous and deadly lies on film at all is concrete proof of their commitment to evil. Evil tells on itself. One picture's worth a thousand words, and this family's decision to capture such dark and demented behavior on film, speaks volumes. |
| Name: | Vance |
| E-mail: | webmaster@peterson-staircase.com |
| Comments: | Peterson's temperamental son, Todd, was never charged with having anything to do with the murder of Kathleen Peterson.
Todd left his parents alone in the house and went to a party at around 10:30 PM. Not pointed out in Lestrade's movie -- but critical to the time-line of events -- is the fact that Kathleen Peterson was beaten and killed hours before Michael phoned police at 2:30 AM and claimed his wife had JUST fallen down the stairs. So we know it wasn't long after Todd had left that the attack on Mrs. Peterson began. Blood evidence proved only one person was walking about at the crime scene. That person was wearing Michael Peterson's tennis shoes. Luminol showed the tennis shoes tracking the victim's blood back and forth to the kitchen and laundry room -- and then the tracks suddenly stop. When police arrived, they saw that Peterson was barefoot and saw his tennis shoes neatly placed together near his wife's corpse. Todd wasn't there. Nobody but Michael was in or around that hallway during the prolonged bashing which produced 10,000 blood drops splattered up and down the walls. Todd says he got to the scene just as paramedics arrived -- shortly after 2:45. Police never claimed he had anything to do with the killing. In fact, the only person that ever connected Todd to this crime -- in a court of law -- was his father. At one point during a break in the trial, a jovial Michael Peterson turned to his family sitting in the courtroom and sarcastically mouthed the words, "Todd did it." |
| Name: | Poetic *Justice |
| E-mail: | webmaster@peterson-staircase.com |
| Comments: | In Lestrade's movie, Michael Peterson is found to be a strange person caught up in a strange and mysterious situation. In real life, Michael Peterson was found guilty of murder.
There is no debate about whether Kathleen Peterson was beaten to death or whether she accidentally fell down a staircase. One brief review of her autopsy should be enough evidence for any reasonable person to conclude she didn't suffer 38 distinct injuries from a slip and fall. Even for those who may have initially held on to doubts, once Mr. Peterson spent a million dollars during the longest trial in North Carolina's history, whatever debate there was came to an end. Kathleen Peterson was murdered. That's a proven fact. And Mr. Peterson's guilt is not a "close call." He claims the death was just an accident -- and yet his wife was kicked, punched, choked and battered for some time in the stairwell, then she was left on the floor for hours to die in pools of her own blood. That didn't happen in a scene from a movie. That happened in the real world and Michael was the only other person in the house with his wife when she was attacked. There is no disagreement about the blunt force trauma Kathleen Peterson was subjected to. It was a horrible, brutal, long and painful death. The prolonged, extreme over-kill left 10,000 blood droplets spattered up and down the walls. She was beaten as she bled. Frankly, no reasonable person should need to hunt for a website to prove to them what photos and documents plainly show -- and what was proven in court beyond any reasonable doubt. Be that as it may, this site is not intended to prove Michael Peterson's guilt to movie fans who may be confused after watching Jean-Xavier's flick. For research on the evidence -- start with the victim's autopsy. As to the so-called "bias" descriptions of Kathleen Peterson's killing being horrible -- and references to Michael Peterson being a narcissistic sociopath and a cold-blooded killer -- that happens to be the truth. Yes, this site has a bias toward the facts as established in a court of law -- and away from the fiction found in Lestrade's film. There is an obvious bias against murder . . . and movie-makers determined to lie about murder. |
| Name: | Poetic*Justice |
| E-mail: | webmaster@peterson-staircase.com |
| Comments: | Christian:
Let me be as frank and blunt as I possibly can: if you, your law professors and criminal law lecturers, or anybody else in the UK thinks Kathleen Peterson suffered 38 distinct injuries (including 7 bone-deep lacerations to the skull and a neck fracture) by "accident," you're all fools. I'm certain you and your professors understand the meaning of the words, "blunt force trauma." It doesn't happen by accident. While I'm more than happy to address questions about Lestrade's documentary -- it's simply a waste of time to continue debating whether or not Michael Peterson's lawyers raised enough doubt to let him get away with homicide. They obviously didn't. Furthermore, the defense failed to identify any other possible person as the killer. Not one single juror had any doubt Mrs. Peterson was brutally murdered. It wouldn't matter where the case was tried -- no juror could read the autopsy and look at the stairwell literally awash in the victim's blood and conclude it was all a big accident. If you really are a law a student -- you should know that when a murder defendant chooses to present his own case and chooses to establish that the death was an "accident," he has chosen to take on his own burden of proof. That's how it works in the States, the UK and just about everywhere else. The jury determined Kathleen Peterson's death was not an accident but rather the result of a brutal, merciless murder. They had no choice but to find Peterson guilty. End of story. |
| Name: | Poetic*Justice |
| E-mail: | webmaster@peterson-staircase.com |
| Comments: | There's no question Mr. Peterson is guilty of murdering his wife. He was proven to be guilty in a court of law.
The fact that so many people -- who only know the case from Lestrade's movie -- have doubts about the convicted killer, is proof of the film's bias. If anybody has doubts about how Mrs. Peterson died, read her autopsy. |
| Name: | Poetic*Justice |
| E-mail: | vance@vanceholmes.com |
| Comments: | Andrew Witherrington wrote:
"many of us legal students from around the world have been exposed to the trial for the purposes of studying evidentiary law." ========================= Fortunately, our justice system comes down to a jury of 12 people from the community -- not "legal students from around the world." You were studying law, the jurors were studying a murder. Perhaps that's why you came to different conclusions. But Michael Peterson has appealed his conviction, forcing the Court of Appeals to study the law -- and Peterson lost. If you students from around the world need insight as to WHY Mr. Peterson was found guilty, I'd suggest you study the autopsy of his victim, Kathleen Peterson. |
| Name: | Jenny |
| E-mail: | gemini_mo@hotmail.com |
| Comments: | Dear Andy,
Could you please expand on your reasons? Why did you all conclude that he was not guilty of murder beyond reasonable doubt? Thanks. |
| Name: | Andrew Witherrington |
| E-mail: | a.witherrington@pgrad.unimelb.edu.au |
| Comments: | many of us legal students from around the world have been exposed to the trial for the purposes of studying evidentiary law. there are many comments that can be made about the case, the characters of the victim, the accused (who is presently guilty), jurors, judges, media and the wider community of north carolina.
significantly, what all of us found at the end of the course, was that peterson was not guilty beyond reasonable doubt for the murder. and that if that was the case, then the murder charges should have failedd in trial. this has important consequences to attempting to found justice in our legal systems throughout the world. andy university of melbourne |
| Name: | Poetic*Justice |
| E-mail: | mpwriter@vanceholmes.com |
| Comments: | On September 19, it was announced that Michael Peterson had lost in the Court of Appeals.
But since one judge dissented, his attorney may now take the appeal to the North Carolina Supreme Court. After that, there is no further place to appeal a conviction. The decision has been posted here under "Report & Files." http://www.peterson-staircase.com/mp_court_of_appeals.html |
| Name: | Michael Peterson |
| Comments: | The Herald-Sun
Friday, October 08, 1999 Editor's Note: Buzz fell asleep Tuesday night at the Old County Courthouse, waiting for election returns to arrive. We had this dream: Mary Doodle Duke, the mayonnaise heiress, is so excited her hands shake as she serves the tea. "At last, a Durham without crime or drugs, with love and respect between blacks and whites, with a local government that is a model of honesty and efficiency. I never thought I'd live so long." Bubba Buttkiss gawks across the living room of his mobile home at Phoebe, then at Lashon. Both are biting their lips, staring at the ceiling with funny looks on their faces. Their eyes seem to be bulging. The four have gathered to select another winner of the Stupid Prize, bestowed on someone who embodies all that is wrong, incompetent and generally screwed up about our beloved Bull City. "What ARE you TALKING about, Mary Doodle?" Bubba says. "Why, that our friend Michael was elected mayor, of course," she sniffs. Bubba, who has just taken a sip of steaming oolong, spits it out in surprise. "Mary Doodle, where have you been? Mike LOST! He couldn't even SURVIVE a five-person PRIMARY." "Paris, actually," Mary Doodle says. "Say what?!" Bubba exclaims, wishing he had a frosty root beer. "I've been in Paris. That's why I didn't know about Mike. But I'd seen all the signs and just assumed he won. He PROMISED me he would." "Well, WAKE up and SMELL the coffee, girl" says Bubba. "He's a goner, what with that war-injury thing and that DWI thing and that campaign ad with wrong names in it and shoving reporters and not taking phone calls. He just BLEW it. It's CRIMINAL, I tell you. It's OUTRAGEOUS. HEADS MUST ROLL!" Suddenly, Lashon and Phoebe drop their gaze from the ceiling. They look at Bubba. Bubba looks back, then at Mary Doodle. Mary Doodle returns his stare, eyes widening, her gaze jumping from one face to another. "I've got it!" she shouts. The others know exactly what she's going to say. "The 1999 Stupid Prize, with V device, should go to . . . Michael Peterson. After all, he invented it. So there. Now please pass the petit fours." "I'll take a root beer," Bubba groans. "Make that two." |