| Name: | Reasonably Prudent Person |
| Comments: | I've watched this documentary a dozen times and have researched as much of this case as possible online, looking for that piece that could CONVINCE me, one way or another. I opted to skip the made for tv movie. I don't know if he did it, nor do any of you.
The only thing I KNOW is that the prosecution did not prove their case. They didn't show how he could have possibly done it - no murder weapon AND no blood spatter on the ceiling?! Someone below argued that the blow poke really IS the murder weapon. The blow poke was found in the garage, undisturbed, with enough cobwebs and dust to prove it had been down there long before Kathleen's death. Further, the blow poke was aluminum, yet there were no dents. Further, no blood spatter on the ceiling. How could someone beat a person, causing those wounds, without drawing his arm back to increase force? THIS is reasonable doubt friends. Why do you think the ADA spent so much time talking about "Brad" in summation? She failed to prove her case and had nothing else to talk about! Whether a result of shoddy police work, or hillbilly lawyering, or of Peterson's actual innocence, there was not enough evidence for this conviction. We are Americans. We DO NOT give people life sentences because they "might have" done it OR "probably" did it - at least in theory. This case should be chilling to each and every one of you as citizens who enjoy constitutional freedoms every day. Imagine if you were on the stand. Would you expect your government to give you the Due Process you are owed before robbing you of your LIBERTY? Even guilty men, ESPECIALLY guilty men should be convicted properly. Otherwise, all we have is a fascist system that sells us all short. You should be ashamed of yourselves, smugly concluding that this man is guilty because you said so. Side note: read up on statistics regarding the increased likelihood of jury conviction for "homosexual" defendants, ie., if homosexual affairs are submitted into evidence, it has an effect, statistically, on the decisions juries make to convict. |
| Name: | ruth velasquez |
| E-mail: | ruth.velasquez@yahoo.com |
| Comments: | This case has so many things to think about. I am actually taking all the evidence..pics..etc..and trying to figure out my own analysis..but there is alot of evidence that points to michael peterson..but at the same time one can't help,but question themselves. |
| 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: | rose |
| E-mail: | rose@27577.com |
| Comments: | Does anyone know when the film might be shown again? |
| Name: | Poetic*Justice |
| E-mail: | webmaster@peterson-staircase.com |
| Comments: | Diane . . .
Those are very interesting -- and controversial -- comments. I don't think the female or male supporters of convicted killer, Michael Peterson are stupid or lack common sense. I believe ignorance and confusion about the basic facts is the main problem. Jean-Xavier de Lestrade's pro-Peterson documentary has greatly added to the confusion. |
| Name: | Diane |
| Comments: | I have just finished reading all of the comments and I am amazed that the majority of MP supporters are women! What does that say about the female gender? Does that mean that women don't have any common sense or are we just plain stupid?
|
| Name: | Sidney |
| Comments: | In response to a question posed in one of the posts awhile back. From the SSA Website:
"Social Security benefits are not paid for the months you have been sentenced to a jail, prison or correctional facility or confined to certain public institutions for committing a crime. And, no benefits can be paid for any month in which you violate a condition of your probation or parole. Although you cannot receive monthly Social Security benefit payments while you are confined, your spouse or children can be paid benefits on your record if they are eligible. And if you have worked and paid Social Security taxes, survivors benefits also may be paid to certain family members if you die." The interesting part of this is that the change in the law came gradually, and in response to repeated attempts by States attempting to attach the SSA benefits of incarcerated persons to offset the costs of keeping them in prison. The Supreme Court denied the beneftis could be attached, as late as 1987. Since 1983, the Court has held that SSI and SSDI were not payable to incarcerated individuals, because they had alternate means of support while in jail. Congress changed the statues in 1988 to include all SS Retirement benefits. Bad news, because in doing so, they implied, or so the court has ruled, that there is no "right" to payments from the SS trust fund due individuals who have contributed throughout a lifetime of work - incarcerated or not - rather, that it is a social welfare system, not a retirement benefits system. Convicted felons on probation or under suspended sentences may collect benefits |
| Name: | Poetic*Justice |
| E-mail: | webmaster@peterson-staircase.com |
| Comments: | Wiley -- you don't know what you're typing about. You're just making generalized guesses.
And you're wrong on every account. Elizabeth Ratliff did NOT have a "brain disorder and also a bleeding disorder." I believe YOU have some sort of brain disorder. The violent death of a human being isn't a guessing game where you get to play junior sleuth. For the record . . . In the run-up to the trial and throughout, Michael Peterson vehemently denied being gay or bi -- and steadfastly maintained he'd never had any sort of sexual affairs with anybody. We'll have to take his word for it, since Kathleen Peterson is dead. Definite claims that Kathleen Peterson "knew he had those tendencies from what friends and family said" are baseless. How would you know what the family said? All we know is what Michael said: a bunch of lies. As to motive . . . There's no such thing as a good motive for murder. Murder is an irrational act and therefore the State is NOT required to prove that a defendant had any sensible reason or "motive" to kill. However, in this case prosecutors proved the fiction writer had a million reasons for wanting his wife to suffer a fatal, "accidental" fall down the stairs. Of course, regardless of whether the woman's extensive injuries were inflicted by accident or on purpose -- the autopsy proved she did not die immediately following. It took her over 3 hours to actually bleed to death. Michael had a great deal of time to get help for his slowly dying "soulmate." Instead, during that time Michael was wiping and cleaning up blood, re-arranging dishes, wine bottles and other items -- and taking off his socks and shoes. Exactly what prompted Peterson to attack his wife on December 9, 2001 is anybody's guess. What IS perfectly clear is that the day before -- on December 8 -- Michael was already busy doing mass deletes of his computer files. |
| 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: | Wiley |
| Comments: | Ok. So the guy is weird as hell in a way. So he remains jovial as he can be - maybe that is his personality style under stress rather than being a sociopath. He has kids to be strong for and is coping in his own way and he has his own kind of character, as well as the fact that he is in a documentary film.
Overall, no one said what the damn motive was for him killing his wife! This does not seem like the kind of man who would have to kill his wife because she finds out he's gay. It seems pretty believable that she knew he had those tendencies from what friends and family said. Overall, what a shoddy, unfair trial in a bad venue for this guy. I can imagine how much blood might be spewing from my own head if I fell backwards at a hard speed into a molding and then falling from there, etc. and then probably again and again trying to get up. As for the woman in Germany, it was proven she had a brain disorder and also a bleeding disorder. I can't believe those block-head prosecutors got anywhere with this case at all. |
| 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: | Michael Isaacson |
| E-mail: | ranger111a@yahoo.com |
| Comments: | The DA, the investagators, the Judge were all guilty of misconduct, if not inappropriate behavior, especially to the corpse.
If you weren't there, than you do not know; you should keep your biased (collective)mouths shut. |
| 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: | Lwcc |
| Comments: | I have watched and watch that dvd set of the staircase at least...20 times. I have read the 2 books written on the case also. Michael Peterson is where he deserves to be ...in jail.
You only have to watch his behaviour in the film. His body language, his voice is the biggest give away. when ever he is talking ablout every day subjects he has a normal calm tone. As soon as he talks about the murder, or having to talk about e-mails from males ecorts etc, his voice raises to a high pitch, this tends to happen to people who are not very good at telling the truth. He may be a story teller by trade, and people may enjoy and buy his books. But not this story and I believe he has thankfully not gotten away with murder. I do feel sorry for his children. I do feel that the boys were covering for him also, of course it was their father. I do also believe that Rudolf didnt believe his story either, but it wasnt his job to believe his story he was paid to keep him out of jail. All I can say is I wish his girls well for their future. |
| Name: | Amanda |
| E-mail: | pancakeperson@hotmail.com |
| Comments: | No murder weapon. No proven motive. How could this man be convicted beyond reasonable doubt? Some serious questions need to be asked of the American legal system. |
| Name: | Jenny |
| E-mail: | *DELETED |
| Comments: | I watched the documentary without previously having heard about the trial. The films bias towards the killer was obvious, but what struck me was how cavalier Peterson and his defense team acted when around the murder scene, and when Dr. Lee was demonstrating blood spatters at the scene.
The poor woman's blood spoke volumes at how violent her death was, and her husband and his legal team stood there casually talking and laughing. May she rest in peace. |
| 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: | J.C. |
| Comments: | I saw the movie and I read this website. Both are completely biased in different directions and I can only wonder why in the case of this site. I read the webmasters name but wonder what the motive or connection is. Please enlighten me webmaster. As for reality, I can't understand how 12 people can see the same information I do and come up with such a different understanding of it. Well, then again there was O.J. Or how one can think that a D.A.'s office can be so biased as to bring charges on someone who is totally innocent. Oops. then again there was Duke....and that was in...well...Big Oops. Durham...
|
| Name: | Roland |
| E-mail: | post@wanrooy.be |
| Comments: | My thoughts and sympathy are with the children. They have been through so much sadness and greef, shed so many tears. May they find peace and happyness in their lives. May they give all the love they have and recieve all the love they need.
Roland |
| Name: | JJ |
| E-mail: | JoRose_02@yahoo.com |
| Comments: | I just finished watching this documentary. It was both fascinating and shocking. As soon as I saw all that blood my first gut reaction was, it couldn't have been from a fall. Falls just don't produce that much blood covering such a wide area. For as intelligent as Michael Peterson probably is, he had to be pretty stupid to think anyone would buy that.
I feel so sorry for all the children involved. What a legacy for the Ratliff girls.. to have a mother, then stepmother die in the same manner. Although they were/are loyal to Michael, at some point they had to question his theory, if only in their own minds, on what happened that night. There is no mystery here. There is no reasonable doubt. This was a murder, and I beleive it was committed by Michael. |
| Name: | RPinCA |
| E-mail: | n/a |
| Comments: | I originally started watching the documentary while flipping through the channels I saw Nifong's name on the screen. Being a lacrosse coach I was naturally interested. I thought the documentary was well put together and compelling. Though I don't know how anyone could watch it and say it wasn't skewed towards Peterson's innocence. Does the film maker purport that this film was supposed to be unbiased? This web-site, while also entertaining, is about as unbiased as the film, though slanted towards Peterson's guilt. The conjecture, and leaps of logic people are willing to believe that are present both on this web-site and in the "documentary" amaze me.
The Peterson case, while a compelling story in itself, is an even better tool for examining human behavior and the complexities that are a part of our decision making process. Thousands of people have seen the documentary, those same people have access to multitudes of evidence in the case, yet opinion of Peterson's guilt or innocence, and what facts prove his guilt or innocence varies wildly. When I see the debate that rages over cases like this I am constantly amazed that 12 people can unanimously decide they have enough proof to send someone to jail for life. I don't think I could ever be a juror. I couldn't find anyone guilty, short of the prosecution producing a viedotape of the acuused breaking said law. |
| Name: | CF |
| Comments: | Todd,
You are Todd Peterson, aren't you? Michael Peterson's son. Michael first told the police that he "went outside to turn out the pool lights, came back in and there she was".....when the paramedics stated that Kathleen had been dead for at least thirty minutes BEFORE they arrived, Peterson changed his story. All this is documented in Diane Fanning's book, "Written In Blood". Peterson is in jail for life......it's over. |
| Name: | Poetic*Justice |
| E-mail: | webmaster@peterson-staircase.com |
| Comments: | Todd . . . I'm not providing you a "link" to legal evidence presented at a murder trial.
Google "Michael Peterson" and "paramedic" -- then start reading pal. Skull fracture or not, the victim suffered blunt force trauma to the head. Nobody disputes that. (Except you I guess.) At trial, the Peterson team refused to specify who had actually found the blowpoke. Clayton was never identified, and never testified under oath that he found anything. The basement of the Peterson mansion actually doubles as the garage. It is a basement/garage. Do some research and find out the facts before disputing them and asking irrelevant questions that have long ago been answered. You seem a little scattershot to me. So we're even. |
| Name: | Todd |
| E-mail: | na |
| Comments: | A couple of questions, I haven't seen where the paramedics testified to Peterson saying he just went out to turn off the pool lights, could you provide me to a link on this as it seems to be a very important part of the evidence towards his guilt on your site. Maybe im just not finding it. In my opinion one of the largest reasonable doubts came with the absence of any Skull fractures, Cerebral contusions, or damage to the brain at all (something very common in beating to the head). Your blow poke part seemed a little strange too,for someone who is trying to give a contradiciton to the film, you could mention that the blowpoke was found by Clayton (even if you don't beleive their story, you could mention that he was not "unidentified" in the film.) Also you repeatedly say it was in the basement, but they found it in the garage. This may not be a big difference, just thought a site providing un-divulged facts should get all of his right. All in all an interesting site, but seems a little scattershot to me. (provide links it would help) |
| 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: | Poetic*Justice |
| E-mail: | webmaster@peterson-staircase.com |
| Comments: | To Truthaboveall:
Where was Michael Peterson during this horrendous chairlift crisis his wife was having? The evidence proves whatever event took place in that stairwell, it went on for quite some time -- perhaps as long as 30 minutes. Why didn't Michael come and rescue his soulmate from the phantom chairlift? (By the way, the lift had been disabled long before Kathleen Peterson's death.) You can make up any nightmare scenario to explain what might have happened to Kathleen Peterson that night, But the question is: What happened to Michael Peterson? It was Michael Peterson -- not the police -- who claimed Mrs. Peterson had just fallen down the stairs. It was Peterson -- not the prosecutors -- who spent a million dollars trying to prove she accidentally fell, so your cheap theories are useless here. If you'd care to share any more of your exciting new fiction, please send it straight to Mike. I'm certain he'll be a captive audience for your writing. |
| Name: | Nunaa |
| E-mail: | maraboisg@yahoo.com |
| Comments: | People....falling down the stairs would never cause that much blood to splatter! And not in that way look at the crime scene photos! This women had deep wounds all over her head the amount of blood is unreal! And im sorry watching the documentary...the part when they find that poke stick; Peterson's reaction looked so fake! He got what he deserved...he's lucky he didnt get the chair.
|
| Name: | Poetic*Justice |
| E-mail: | webmaster@peterson-staircase.com |
| Comments: | To Truthaboveall:
First of all, the truth about the timing: It doesn't take 45 minutes to take "a last puff" on a cigarette. So that's just silly. Medical experts agree Kathleen Peterson had been dead long before her husband called for help. Second, the truth about the injuries: Kathleen Peterson's autopsy reveals 38 distinct wounds. Beyond the 7 bone-deep lacerations to her skull -- which were both vertical and horizontal -- she had defensive wounds on her arms and hands, facial wounds and a fracture of the neck. Neither the prosecution nor the defense EVER suggested Mrs. Peterson was somehow stuck in any stairlift machine. |
| Name: | Truthaboveall |
| E-mail: | thecarpentersfriend@gmail.com |
| Comments: | Michael came in from outside carrying his wife...who had fallen asleep by the pool. He placed her at the bottom of the stairs, and called down the old stairlift, as he didn't have the energy to carry her upstairs to bed. After pressing the call button, he went back outside to turn off the lights and have a last puff. In the meantime Kathleen, still asleep, had adjusted her sitting up position to rest her head on the wooden chairlift rail...and consequently became wedged as the stairlift reached the bottom of its travel. Trapped she no doubt yelled and banged on the wall (causing the multiple low blood splatter). Overtime she violently struggled to free herself, tearing the wounds in the back of her head. Finally free, she then attempted to stand up, collapsed, and slipped into unconciousness. 45 minutes later, Michael came in and happended upon the horrific scene. As any one would do, and not sure if she was alive, reached his leg out and prodded her with his foot to test for life...leaving his bloody footprint. She was alive, just.
The two key pieces of evidence: 1. The wounds on Kathleens head appear to be in pairs from the stairlift channel. 2. There apperas to be an impression of the blue stop switch at the base of the channel, on the right side of her head. Conclusion: Michael is no cold blooded killer...bungling,yes, killer...no. This is an industrial accident involving machinery, and perhaps too much wine celebrating Michaels recent movie deal. He knows what happended but can't bring himself to admitting it to his children that his own stupidity killed their mother. It is time to free him...he and his his family suffered enough. PS The German case? Patti knows more than she is admitting. |
| Name: | LM |
| Comments: | I have watched the documentary twice now, and also watched much of the case as it was covered live. I strongly feel that the defense introduced reasonable doubt into this case. The burden of proof in our justice system is not guilty or innocent. It is guilty or not guilty. There was reasonable doubt in this case; although, I am not 100% sure that he didn't do it. |
| 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: | Juno |
| E-mail: | elephant@earthlyreturns.com |
| Comments: | Vance, I've just finished watching "The Staircase" for the second time. My overwhelming impression is that the 2 girls Martha and Margaret are/were suffering a state of mind similar to that which is called "Stockholm Syndrome."
All their denials and fuss and indignation leaves me unconvinced. If they step away from the family and see it for what it was truly, how could they idealize it? Their stepbrother Clayton was in jail for 4 years for acts of homegrown terrorism---that's building bombs and gathering materials for more bombs people---in what way was this a normal family? To tell the truth, Clayton Peterson himself scares the shit out of me. His violent history wasn't touched on in the documentary AT ALL. I can picture the director making an executive decision to hardly show Clayton so as not to besmirch the elder Peterson as he strikes another "Hemingway" pose. But to portray the family as idyllic is asking for someone to come along and expose the lie. Which is what has happened. Sad for those who bought the story so completely. |
| Name: | Poetic*Justice |
| E-mail: | webmaster@peterson-staircase.com |
| Comments: | Mike Nifong was NOT assigned to the Peterson case. The prosecutors were Jim Hardin and Freda Black.
It's worth noting -- neither Mr. Nifong nor anybody else from the Durham DA's office was at the Cedar Street Mansion at the time Kathleen Peterson died. Michael Peterson was alone with his wife when she was murdered. |
| Name: | Jason |
| E-mail: | Hamnet28@aol.com |
| Comments: | Do you think it's worth noting (being fair and balanced) that one of the prosecutors on the case was Mike Nifong, who was later disbarred for prosecutorial misconduct? |
| 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: | Fred |
| Comments: | Whoever made this site should be applauded to try to reveal some other facts, kept out of the movie by Lestrade. However, I have some problems with it after seeing the movie and upon coming to this site to find out more about the case.
I was completely convinced that Peterson was not guilty after seeing the film, which is obviously biased in some ways, but still gives an insight in the way the defence approached the case and the way the Peterson family dealt with the different developments during the trial. It also shows the double tragedy for most of the family: losing a mother and a father. This site raises big doubts about Petersons innocence, but doesn't adress this, only speaking of 'horrible murder' by a 'sociopatic moster'in a 'nightmarish death'. It is equally biased in the other direction, as this language shows, and has the disadvantage of not only doing a bad job of explaining the big prosecution points, but not refuting a couple of the defence's big points (weak motive, no murder weapon, REASONABLE doubt). Besides, it's not a work of art like The Staircase is but it pretends to be objective. It focusses too much on the alternative theory of falling down the stairs (obviously flawed), while the prosecution clearly has the burden of proof for their homocide theory: the homocide cases with blunt trauma to the head in the last 10 years in the state all had either skull fractures or at least bruising of the brain. It comes off as too defensive: As if people in the south are not moral conservatives and won't be influenced by Petersons sexuality in the slightest. As if the US justice system is flawless. As if the media coverage was unbiased, uninfluential or non-intrusive. Come on. It might not have had a decisive influence on the verdict, but surely it played a role. This whole site stikes me as just another biased source and makes me wonder who is behind it and funding it. Congratulations on trying to justify this double tragedy to the Peterson family. I am not convinced either way and anyone saying it is clear cut should reevaluate. Im glad these points have been mentioned before to show i'm not alone in my doubts. |
| Name: | Poetic*Justice |
| E-mail: | webmaster@peterson-staircase.com |
| Comments: | Hello Katie:
I found the Lifetime TV movie quite interesting and commented on it at length at my site. No, I don't think the question of Peterson's guilt was left ambiguous. In fact -- considering it was a Lifetime drama -- I thought they were fairer to his ridiculous lies than they needed to be. http://www.vanceholmes.com/court/trial_m_peterson.html |
| Name: | katiecoolady |
| E-mail: | katiecoolady@yahoo.com |
| Comments: | Hi P*J,
Did you think the Lifetime film was heavily influenced by the Maha production? There were scenes where the eerie string music was nearly identical to that signature soundtrack of Maha. Also, oddly for Lifetime, it was almost left somewhat ambiguous to guilt. What did you think? |
| Name: | katiecoolady |
| E-mail: | katiecoolady@yahoo.com |
| Comments: | To Diamondsrace,
In answer to this question: 3: for those pitching the argument that MP is deadly narcissistic. How on earth does narcisism explain the so called murder of Elizabeth Ratliff in Germany? Michael Peterson's pathological narcissism led him to find all kinds of ways to be entitled to other people's money, mostly women. In Germany, he and his wife Patty visited a good friend of Patty's somewhere in Europe and he stole her debit card, rooted around for the passwords and during a 3 or four day visit there, each day took out the maximum he could out of HER bank account totally $1000.00 I believe. He later admitted doing it when confronted and partially paid it back (with his then wife's assistance) but never fully repaid the debt of this theft. It cost Patty her friendship with this woman. This is all documented in Diane Fanning's book "Written In Blood". After Elizabeth Ratliff's husband died, Michael Peterson set about taking over her estate/will planning. The insurance money SHE received from her husband's death, two years before her own murder, was never recovered following her death. The girls, which he chose to raise in lieu of raising his own sons or providing child support for them to his wife who single handedly raised them, came with their own monthly payments and their mother's inheritance. Michael Peterson lived off those girls in another country than the country his OWN sons were being raised for years. They were like little providers of income for him. Had he adopted them legally, some of their financial benefits would have been forfeited. A Narcissist is masterful at manipulation and groomed those girls to feel they couldn't live without him but in reality, he couldn't live the lifestyle he was wanting to live (a jobless writer) without them and their income. Hope this clears things up. Like Kathleen's murder, it was primarily motivated by money. |
| Name: | Poetic*Justice |
| E-mail: | webmaster@peterson-staircase.com |
| Comments: | Dear Diamondsrace:
Tired old rumors and ridiculous speculation about Margaret and Martha Ratliff being the biological children of Michael Peterson are not only unfounded and untrue -- they're unfair. Those familiar with the facts have repeatedly pointed out that the Ratliff girls were NEVER EVEN ADOPTED by Peterson. They are not his daughters. There is no shortage of information about this matter. The slightest bit of research will reveal the facts of Elizabeth Ratliff, her husband George and their two children. It's unfortunate that Lestrade failed to mention those facts -- since they didn't comport with his version of Kathleen Peterson's killing -- as it may have put the rumors to rest. Yes, the State prosecutors were extremely bias against this man who brutally murdered his wife and claimed it was some sort of inexplicable accident. And so was the jury. Durham's current DA, Mike Nifong had nothing to do with Mr. Peterson's murder. Nifong was nowhere near Kathleen Peterson's house when her husband attacked her, beat her and left her to bleed to death. |
| Name: | diamondsrace |
| E-mail: | diamondsrace@aol.com |
| Comments: | I am not sure about this tragic death. I have reasonable doubt for MP but I do not know if Kathleen's death was accidental, its a mystery. For those that know the background and legal traiing I have a couple of ??s .
1:Is there any possibility that Margaret could be the bological child of MP? She appears to have a family resemblance. 2: Re the Prosecution (who I believe demonstrated unfair bias against the defendant and shamefully created a public/media circus of Elizabeth Radcliff's exhumation. Such a lack of respect for her family.) I notice that Mike Nifong (sp?)who was on the prosecuting team has been suspended for rash judgement/charges against 3 men in the Duke University rape case. All charges have been dropped due to lack of evidence and charges maybe be laid on Mike N. If he is dismissed, and a pattern of such bias/incompetence found, could this give MP cause for further appeal? 3: for those pitching the argument that MP is deadly narcissistic. How on earth does narcisism explain the so called murdr of Elizabeth Ratcliff in Germany? thanks Dia |
| Name: | katiecoolady |
| E-mail: | katiecoolady@yahoo.com |
| Comments: | I think Michael Peterson premeditated and commited the crime but I do have suspicions that Todd helped him dispose of the murder weapon and helped with coverup. I have no doubts that many members of his family knew, but didn't care, about his guilt. They just didn't want to lose him to prison. Obviously his felonious son Clayton was involved in "discovering" the planted fauxpoke placed there for it's last minute Perry Mason moment at the end of the defense case. I believe it was carefully discussed/decided who would "find" the fauxpoke and they all orchestrated it, including possibly Peterson's attorney Rudolf. They all looked like they were playing out a very well rehearsed scene to me. |
| Name: | Todd_did_It |
| E-mail: | a9arose@msn.com |
| Comments: | I think he is covering up for Todd and MAYBE he was the one who finished her off by placing absorbant paper towels under her head to suck the blood out faster after Todd already beat the **** out of her but I think that it was Todd....I think that Todd came home with the girl and maybe Kathleen found them in her bed when she came in for the night and they fought about him being all of the things he is...including a mooch...a it escalated from there. MP is covering for his son in this scenerio because blood is thicker........
|
| 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: | Christian |
| Comments: | Thanks for replying. I've read through Dr Radisch's autospy report and i don't really consider it particularly damning.
I fully understand your comments Poetic*Justice, and they all carry good weight, but as a law student in the UK and having discussed the case in seminars with my professors and criminal law lecturers we NEARLY all agree that had the case occurred in the UK an acquittal or a hung jury would have been very likely based upon some of the expert testimony and the sheer number of question marks remaining. I don't think the US and UK justice systems are too different, but it may be the case that in the UK a defendant is very much 'innocent until proven guilty' and doesn't have to prove his innocence. The feeling from this case is that maybe MP was required to prove his innocence, rather than the prosecution having to prove his guilt. Our system tends to heavily favour the defendant and our conviction rates reflect this, so if MP was tried in the UK it would have been very interesting to see the outcome. I certainly don't think the UK system is flawless, far from it, and we could definitely learn from some of the more meaningful and strong sentences that the US courts hand down. |
| Name: | Poetic*Justice |
| E-mail: | webmaster@peterson-staircase.com |
| Comments: | Christian:
Here we go again with the "reasonable doubt" tap dance. Please remember -- the justice system depends on reasonable certainties. There's no doubt Kathleen Peterson was murdered by SOMEBODY. If you don't believe the State medical examiners -- look at the autopsy for yourself, Christian. It provides concrete evidence the victim was not only murdered, but brutalized, bashed, beaten, and then left to bleed to death for hours. Those are the reasonably certain, scientific, medical facts of the case. You've written you "think the likelihood is that he did murder Kathleen, but surely there was enough 'doubt' to satisfy 'reasonable doubt' and return a not guilty verdict." A horrible crime happened and an innocent woman died a nightmarish death in her own home. Any clever lawyer can put forth arguments about individual pieces of the evidence, but raising doubts -- even several of them -- is not enough to erase the certainty of a murder. SOMEBODY killed Kathleen Peterson. Michael readily and repeatedly admitted he was the only other person in the house. He amazingly contended his wife must've killed herself -- in some sort of mysterious accident. Christian, you mentioned several old talking points that have been trumpeted by the murderer's admirers for years: "never was a murder weapon found . . . the cast-off spatters . . . DA witholding the report . . . all 268 deaths in the state by beating to the head had caused skull fractures . . ." But none of that addresses the AUTOPSY that details 38 distinct injuries to the victim's head and body -- and the presence of RED NEURONS which prove she remained alive for quite some time beyond the horrific attack. Where was Michael as his beloved wife lay in the stairwell bleeding to death for at least an hour -- more likely three? Michael told paramedics he only left his wife for a few moments to go shut off the pool lights, and that he immediately returned. So even if you buy into some of the legalistic defense arguments, you're still left with the ample evidence that SOMEBODY killed Kathleen Peterson -- and Michael insists he was the only person with her. Nobody knows exactly how he did it, what weapons he used, where the extraordinary amounts of blood spatter came from, or why he went about re-arranging the crime scene for hours before phoning police. But it's certain he killed his wife -- since no reasonable person can believe she was brutalized and left to bleed to death by accident. |
| Name: | Christian |
| E-mail: | chris1966tian@hotmail.com |
| Comments: | I've watched the documentary, I've read Fanning's book, I've seen CourtTV and I've taken into account everyone's opinion but I can honestly say I've still got some doubt about the verdict.
I think the likelihood is that he did murder Kathleen, but surely there was enough 'doubt' to satisfy 'reasonable doubt' and return a not guilty verdict? The fact there never was a murder weapon found, the cast-off spatters were clearly not from a beating with a blowpoke, the prosecution being unable to re-create anything like the blood patterns with a weapon, the wiping down of blood and contamination of the scene by someone but not MP on court photographs, the DA witholding the report regarding blood on MP's shirt, the fact that all 268 deaths in the state by beating to the head had caused skull fractures and massive brain trauma yet this was the only case where only lacerations occurred. Surely there is enough weight behind these factors to amount to reasonable doubt? That said, there's plenty in favour of him being guilty! Fascinating case though. So, now that the Supreme Court have rejected his appeal does that mean all avenues have been tried and he will definitely not be released, or does he still have options? |
| Name: | Poetic*Justice |
| E-mail: | webmaster@peterson-staircase.com |
| Comments: | To the "2nd year law student" --
Based on the quality and content of the report you've filed here, you clearly have much to learn. If the Peterson case has so rocked you to your foundation -- you might want to stop and really consider your career path. At any rate -- it's interesting to note that Jean-Xavier de Lestrade's movie makes very little mention of the police searches and what was found in Mr. Peterson's mansion. It's also noteworthy that -- contrary to his stated desire to find out what happened to his dear, beloved "soulmate" -- Peterson forced police to get search warrants in order to investigate her death. The grieving husband did his level best to block investigators at every turn. Much of the astounding array of damning evidence that police uncovered, and that eventually convicted Michael Peterson, was strangely missing from Maha's movie. And as any 2nd year law student should know -- people only find it helpful to hide things when they know the truth will hurt their case. PS -- the book tracks your IP address, so it's useless to keep switching names and responding to yourself. |
| Name: | Jenny |
| E-mail: | gemini_mo@hotmail.com |
| Comments: | Dear 2nd year law student
Why would law students be asked for their reaction to a work of fiction, rather than study the trial and related documents? It would have appropriate had you been involved in media studies, but any documentary, no matter how unbiased, would tell you precious little about the reality of this or any other trial. Please clarify. Thank you. |
| Name: | 2nd year law student |
| Comments: | I am a second year law student and have just finished watching the documentary as required by my criminal procedure class. I now face the difficult task of writing a paper describing my opinion and reaction to the film. I decided to do some extra research before beginning and came upon this website. First, I must say how happy I am to see that this case had such an affect on other viewers, regardless of age, profession or location. I feel compelled to share with those who have commented or will comment in the future the way in which this film has affected me. I have been glued to the television since renting the dvd and found myself holding back emotion as the verdict was read. As a law student this film has had an enormous affect on me and the career path I have chosen and invested 2 years of my time, life and money. I understand why people feel the way that they do, agreeing or disagreeing with the verdict. I do not however, as a law student, understand how the legal system so boldly let me down. I leave this site to write a paper in which I will question the very justice our system seeks to serve and the disappoint I feel as I embark on a career to do so. Regardless if you agree or disagree with the verdict, I hope you will understand that what happened in that court room completely contradicts that which the system seeks to accomplish, and what an injustice that truly is. Even if I think Mr. Peterson is in fact guilty of the crime, I do not agree with the way in which the trial was conducted, and that to me is what is most important about this case and what viewers should take notice of.
Thank you. |
| 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: | Gaston |
| E-mail: | gaston_swissdoc@hotmail.com |
| Comments: | I saw the documentary, which gave me the impression of MP's innocence.
I read some documents in the net, which gave me the impression of MP's guilt. What speaks for MP: 1. There is no weapon found (and there was not too much time to get rid of it) 2. There is no skull fracture or brain damage on KP ( you would really expect one, if somone gets killed by a blut item) 3. His seemingly good relationship whith his family members including his wife. 4. Lack of a motiv (neither his bisexuality nor financial circumstances are convincing) 5. People can get killed by falling down the staircase What speaks against MP: 1. There are much more injuries on the head than ever expected for falling down the stairs. 2. Injuries on head and arms, but not back, buttom or legs. 3. Much more blood and above all much more spred than expected for such a accident. 4. To loose twice a wife by falling down a staicase is about as likly as the possibility of someone having the same DNA fingerprint as someone else (e.g. a murderer) 5. If no accident: Either him, an owl or his son? (Forget about the bird, the son arrives just the same time as the paramedics, but MP seems to be most present at the scene) I am a medical doctor whith some knowledge about crime injuries, nevertheless just be watching a documentary or reading in the internet, I have not the right to state my opinion on a public site. Therefore I do not state, if I think he is guilty or innocent. After all: To give someone life imprisonment there should be absolutely no doubt about the guilt! |
| 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." |