| Name: | Brian H. |
| E-mail: | cthulu48@yahoo.com |
| Comments: | In response to an earlier comment regarding the possibility of "plea bargaining" (specifically, the writer mentions the "Alford Plea" used recently in the West Memphis 3 case), I would like to say a couple of small things.
First, I'd like to say that I have enjoyed Lestrade's documentary work (especially "Murder On a Sunday Morning"), but I am completely unsure if I'm of the opinion that Peterson is guilty or innocent. My comment has nothing to do with that. What I'd specifically like to reply to is the comment about the possibility of an Alford Plea entering the case. The writer said that an entry of an Alford Plea automatically proves that they are guilty, simply b/c they plead guilty to get out of jail after years of incarceration. That's not the case. The writer specifically mentioned the West Memphis 3 case being "resolved" with an Alford plea. I think it's important that people don't lump anything about Michael Peterson's case together with anything from the West Memphis 3 case, just based on the idea that an entry of an Alford plea is an admission of guilt. It's not. It's a guilty plea with a profession of innocence that reduces a sentence to time served. In the case of the West Memphis 3, there are obvious reasons why they accepted that plea deal, the most significant being that Damien Echols was on death row and even with an imminent retrial that would most likely have resulted in his acquittal, his health would have gotten worse over the course of a trial that could have potentially lasted for more than 1 or 2 years, and Echols has also said that he knew he could have very easily been killed while incarcerated during a retrial. The 3 men had already served over 18 years in prison and have always maintained innocence, so no one can imagine the issues they had to weigh in their minds if they accepted such a plea. Walk in their shoes, then say that an Alford plea is some kind of obvious admission of guilt. My point? I'm saying that drawing conclusions about guilt or innocence based SOLELY upon someone accepting an Alford Plea is a flawed theory, in my opinion. Add on top that that there was WAY more exculpatory evidence in the West Memphis 3 case than there was in Peterson's case, and DEFINITELY less damning evidence against the WM3 than there is against Peterson, and UNDENIABLE evidence of an unfair trial in the West Memphis 3 case, and I think you can see what I'm getting at... The WM3 shouldn't be discussed in the same breath as Michael Peterson, even if his upcoming retrial results in something like an Alford Plea (which I don't think would be possible with all of the evidence against him anyway), because the West Memphis 3 had a very meritorious claim of innocence and Michael Peterson's case is much less compelling, in my opinion. So, I just wanted to express that, not to argue with anyone by any means, but to offer my opinion about the Alford Plea, specifically, since it was mentioned earlier. If Michael Peterson were to accept such a plea (if it were offered...) I would tend to think differently about why he would accept the deal in comparison to why the West Memphis 3 accepted it. Needless to say, I'm anxious to see what happens in the upcoming Peterson retrial. And while I am a fan of Lestrade's series "The Staircase", I do acknowledge that lots of damning evidence from the trial was left out and the film does offer a slanted view. I just enjoy documentaries; I make up my own mind based on further research of the issues, and I urge everyone else to do the same. Peace. |
| Name: | Sam |
| E-mail: | sam_mcc@hotmail.com |
| Comments: | I'm surprised by the strength of the comments on your homepage. I and several of my friends watched the Staircase and were left in no doubt that Mr Peterson was guilty. Yes, the producers focused on the defence team, but one of the points of the documentary was to examine the effect of the investigation and the trial on Mr Peterson and his family. From a non-legal point of view, this element of the documentary was fascinating. I felt that the prosecution's case was put forward in as much detail as was required to allow the viewer to come to a reasonable conclusion. The evidence regarding the injuries themselves, the slow exposure of Mr Peterson's extra-marital affairs, his previous wife's death, these were all crucial elements of the prosecution case. The viewer is presented with all of the facts as well as Mr Peterson's explanations and allowed to reach their own conclusions.
You reserve criticism of de Lestrade's statement concerning bisexuality. It seems to me that Mr Peterson's bisexuality was a cornerstone of the prosecutions case, in that it proved that he was a liar and provided him with a motive for the murder. Perhaps it is not evidence of the filmaker's bias, but instead a statement of fact. If the evidence of Mr Peterson's bisexuality was not present, the prosecution's case would have been much weaker, if not non-existent. This was a very complex case, one feels that a 6 hour documentary does little more than scratch the surface. Highlights can never do the full story justice, but in my opinion this documentary tries to be factually objective and succeeds. |
| Name: | Marie |
| E-mail: | mstreeting@minimovers.com.au |
| Comments: | I have watched the DVD over and over and I just wonder about one of the opening shots where Mr Peterson is taking us through the evening of events leading the death of his wife. He is showing us the chairs they were sitting in at the back of the pool. If you look up you will see the lattice on one small section of an otherwise perfect fence looks like someone has fallen into it put their foot through it. This has always played on my mind for some reason. A broken piece of that lattice would do a bit of damage. Just an observation. |
| Name: | Theo |
| E-mail: | theovolz@gmail.com |
| Comments: | Yeah, at the end of one of the news videos I watched they said Peterson's lawyer was talking about a possible plea deal. I'm imagining an "Alford plea" deal, like what was given to the West Memphis Three, or something similar. And it would be his best chance. Obviously, any plea deal taken by Peterson would be an admission that he did it, which flies in the face of everything he's been saying up until now.
I'd be surprised if the prosecutors did offer a plea deal as, in my opinion, they still have a strong case to prove Peterson's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. |
| Name: | Diane Stauder |
| E-mail: | dianestaud@earthlink.net |
| Comments: | It's hard to say whether it was a joke though they were doing a lot of laughing throughout the video over the violent death of Mrs. Peterson. I do believe it was a slip on David Rudolph's part and it should have been edited out by the producer. I am curious if the new prosecution team will use any part of the video in the retrial of MP. It is out there for the public. If MP's lawyers were smart they should go for a plea deal, maybe offer a plea of guilty on 2nd degree manslaughter and get MP out on time served. Even if that does happen MP is a ruined man. No income, and he lost the wrongful death lawsuit that Kaitlin brought against him. He is a pariah (a social outcast) very much like Casey Anthony and that suits me just fine. |
| Name: | Theo |
| E-mail: | theovolz@gmail.com |
| Comments: | Isn't Rudolf saying it as a joke though? After all, Rudolf states early on in the documentary that he absolutely believed Michael Peterson to be innocent. Why would he make such a statement to Peterson on the phone when he knew they were filming and knew how that'd make his client look (if he was being serious)?
Or am I missing something here? |
| Name: | Diane Stauder |
| E-mail: | dianestaud@earthlink.net |
| Comments: | I beg to differ. David Rudolf clearly says, Whatever YOU used, there is no blood on the blowpoke." I watched it again and turned the volume up completely loud and had 4 other people listen to it and watched his lips and the consensus was "YOU". I do agree with you on one point. People do hear what they want to hear including YOURSELF!!!!!! |
| Name: | Dan |
| E-mail: | danfhnyc@gmail.com |
| Comments: | I'm amazed that people hear and see what they want to. Several have said that David Rudolf says to Mike Patterson via cell phone "There's no blood on the blow poke. Whatever you used, there's no blood." Actually, it's "he used." Clearly, the lawyer is referring to the forensic scientist's method (such as with chemicals) in determining what was and what was not on the blow poke. |
| Name: | suzy |
| E-mail: | suzydude@hotmail.com |
| Comments: | I loved watching The Staircase. So glad there's a retrial, it's like Season 2 !!!! |
| Name: | Diane Stauder |
| Comments: | ETOH is not a blood thinner. It would not make you bleed any faster or make you die any faster. In fact when you are drunk and you fall down stairs chances are you are going to not only survive the fall but come up unbroken as many trauma patients that I have seen over 20 years as a trauma nurse. When you are intoxicted you do not "stiffen" up when you are in an accident which is why the "drunk" ones always walk away from a major accident while the sober ones died. |
| Name: | Vance |
| E-mail: | webmaster@peterson-staircase.com |
| Comments: | The problem with the crazy attacking owl theory is that Michael Peterson said he was always with his wife that night except for a very few moments. Michael never mentioned seeing an owl. He insisted she had an ACCIDENT.
Michael told the responding paramedics that he only left Mrs. Peterson to briefly go turn off some lights in the backyard -- and when he returned, his wife was suddenly laying on the floor bleeding to death. He called 9-1-1 and explained that his wife had just fallen down the stairs and was still alive. "Yes, she's still breathing!" he screamed. However, when paramedics arrived, they saw that Mrs. Peterson had obviously been dead for some time. The medics immediately knew what testing later confirmed: Mrs. Peterson had died a long time before Michael reported she had fallen but was "still breathing." Peterson's own words on the 9-1-1 call box him into an impossible timeline of events. This is why Peterson's lawyers never argued that there was an intruder -- human or otherwise. Michael himself insists it was an accident. Peterson's insurance paid out on accidental death -- not fatal disease or homicide by owl. |
| Name: | SC |
| E-mail: | polystyrene1977@gmail.com |
| Comments: | Yes, seemed strange to me that she was in one place. The other "defensive wounds", those types ie. chipped tooth, scrapes, bruises can be from falling, but the concentrated deep lashes are all on the back of her head or top/back, just really makes me wonder how that can happened, I would assume anyone being beaten would turn? Or if they're lying on the ground would face upward block/kick etc? No way if someone tried to beat me would they be able to get repeated blows to the back of my head, I would be moving all over. And the prosecution said she was beaten in rage by MP...but people who are in rage DOES not control how hard they beat someone or what part...they would full force non stop in a frenzy? And lastly, does anyone think the fact that she had a .07 blood alcohol content could have caused her to bleed out faster and died faster? I think .07 is like 2 drinks within an hour and that's usually when the blood is thinnest, but don't quote me on that. |
| Name: | Celia |
| E-mail: | starfire.angel@yahoo.com |
| Comments: | Thank you for continuing with this site, especially in light of the recent development of Michael Peterson having been released on bond and placed on house arrest. I was shocked and dismayed that he is being allowed to await the possibility of a new trial at a friend's home instead waiting in jail, where, in my opinion, he belongs for the rest of his life. I have read this entire site and am currently reading Diane Fanning's "Written in Blood." Too many things point to Michael Peterson as the murderer of both Kathleen and Elizabeth and justice is not being served by him walking free. I hope and pray there will be a re-trial and he will be re-sentenced to life without the possibility of parole. Thank you for keeping this site updated so people with doubts of his guilt, or questions, can find accurate information all in one place. Excellent work.
I do have one question, though. What about the possible "microscopic owl feathers" that were purportedly found in Kathleen's hands and hair? The owl theory may raise a reasonable doubt in MP's retrial (if there is one). I hope they may be explained away by her having come in contact with anything on her property outdoors that she may have carried inside prior to being attacked by MP. Could she have picked them up while sitting outdoors or brushing against the branch of a tree? I am curious as to your opinion about the owl feathers. I do have one question, though. What about the possible "microscopic owl feathers" that were purportedly found in Kathleen's hands and hair? The owl theory may raise a reasonable doubt in MP's retrial (if there is one). I hope they may be explained away by her having come in contact with anything on her property outdoors that she may have carried inside prior to being attacked by MP. Could she have picked them up while sitting outdoors or brushing against the branch of a tree? I am curious as to your opinion about the owl feathers. Also, there was his bloody footprint on the backside of her pants, I believe he held her down for part of beating and bleeding to death process. If he was concerned for her as he claimed why would he step on her? That doesn't sound like what a loving spouse would do if they discovered their loved one in trouble and were trying to help, it makes no sense at all. I wonder how MP explained away that footprint? |
| Name: | Vance |
| E-mail: | webmaster@peterson-staircase.com |
| Comments: | Good questions, polystyrene1977.
Yes, Kathleen Peterson did have multiple defensive wounds on her hands and forearms. Besides the 7 bone-deep lacerations to the top and back of her head, Mrs. Peterson also had injuries and bruising to the face, a chipped tooth and a fractured bone in her neck. In all, Mrs. Peterson sustained 38 separate injuries. We know she was covering and gripping her head at some points because clumps of her own hair were found in her hands. But what you’re saying about Mrs. Peterson only being in one place is an important point. The major wounds are in a relatively concentrated area, and they are precise and deliberate – not wild and haphazard. This is evidence that the victim did not randomly fall several times – as the defense suggested -- because in that scenario, we would expect to see random injuries doing different types of damage. There would not be repeat blows. And so yes, she must have been relatively still when Michael administered the blows to the top and back of the head. Importantly, Michael’s blows were somewhat controlled, in that they did not smash the skull and cause immediate death. Mrs. Peterson actually died from the loss of blood – a process which likely took about 30 minutes after the beating finally ended. |
| Name: | SC |
| E-mail: | polystyrene1977@gmail.com |
| Comments: | Some questions pops in my mind when I read this part on this site:
"Bearing in mind the blood-soaked soles of Kathleen Peterson's feet and the wet blood spatter on top of dried spatter, it's reasonable to conclude that after Michael beat his wife and left her to die, she was able to revive herself. She struggled to her feet and probably surprised Michael, who panicked and beat his wife again -- mercilessly. " If she was beaten, how did he do all blows to the same area of the head? She didn't try to move? Somehow she just stood there and let him, repeatedly? Also if she revived which the blood on the bottom of her feet suggests she did - she didn't cover her head with her hands/arms, to be prepared for another attack? The lacerations was only on her head correct? Other "wounds" were minor abrasions? So SOMEHOW, he was able to only "beat" her on the head, because apparently Kathleen just stood there didn't try to move or block or defend herself in any way. A little strange for an "attack" don't you think? I don't know if Mike is innocent or not, but I just don't see ABSOLUTE evidence that it was a beating or attack....since no signs of her defending herself, if she was beaten she would have tried to cover her head that is the reaction of most everyone if someone where to start hitting them with an object, and yet she does not have any of these ripped wounds on her hands or arms etc...Suggesting that she did not ever try to block any blows or try to protect herself. |
| Name: | Vance |
| E-mail: | webmaster@peterson-staircase.com |
| Comments: | Peterson was never married to Liz Ratliff. There were "Chat Noir" prints at both crime scenes.
For case details go to: http://www.vanceholmes.com/court/trial_m_peterson.html |
| Name: | lea |
| E-mail: | l.faletti@yahoo.com |
| Comments: | I am confused about Ms. Ratliff...Why was he the only one in her home that late or early in the morning. Also the "Cat Noir" was at the crime scene...Was the Cat Noir "missing" from the Ratliff's home...Also, Why would they allow Mike Peterson that was convicted of first degree murder and "gets a new trial" you let him walk out of prison instead of sending him to county to wait for his "new" trial to begin. I have never heard of that....if an owl get's him a new trial....did an Owl kill Ms. Ratliff too.... |
| Name: | faye Cherry |
| E-mail: | fayenana7@nc.rr.com |
| Comments: | Was the first woman to die Mike Peterson's(first wife) I'm trying to tell 4 women at work that they friends and She was married to her husband named Geo. Ratliff who died 3 years before His wife died. And some named ANN was Petersons (first wife). Would clear this up for us. Thank You very much. Faye Cherry. |
| Name: | Vance |
| E-mail: | webmaster@peterson-staircase.com |
| Comments: | Judge Orlando Hudson has ruled that Peterson will get a new trial. Hudson found that testimony from (former) State Bureau of Investigation agent Duane Deaver may have misled the jury in the 2003 trial. |
| Name: | TM |
| Comments: | David,
You would have had to read the excellent books on the case or watch the trial on CourtTV to be able to sort the truth out...The Staircase won't do that for you. The forensics of this case don't lie. The blood on the walls doesn't lie. Kathleen divorced her first husband for adultery with a woman...She would not have tolerated an affair with a man...and speaking from the point of view of a woman, betrayal with a man would be worse because it makes the whole marriage a lie. Everything known about Kathleen is she believed herself to be in a monogamous marriage. She was devastated by her first husband's infidelity. People who are devastated by infidelity don't tend to jump into an open marriage. The bisexuality came into court because the defense tried to portray this as a fairytale marriage between soulmates...It was not, and the evidence was on Michael's email account she accessed just before her death. He was in a position to lose everything in a divorce....She made his lifestyle as king of the manor possible...The mansion would have had to be sold, and he would have had to get a job (which would have interfered with his time at the Y). |
| Name: | David Hayes |
| E-mail: | hayes1@sympatico.com |
| Comments: | One added note. I'm troubled by the whole sexuality issue being brought into court & into comments on this site & elsewhere. No one produced any evidence that Kathleen Peterson didn't know about her husband's bisexuality. Nor, no doubt to the disbelief of the prosecutors & even Kathleen's family members, that there is such a thing as enlightened marriages that make room for someone with a strong need to fulfill them without ending the marriage. And, no, they do not necessarily tell others close to them about it. In the case of circumstances like this, in particular, it's often easier for a wife to accept that her husband may have to fulfill a need to experience relations with another man from time to time, rather than another woman. The prosecution made "bisexuality" out to be just this side of evil, rather than simply a point on the human sexual continuum. (Perhaps it reflects powerful religous beliefs, which themselves so often cause so much damage in our world?) In any event, the prosecution raised Peterson's bisexuality as if it's a foregone conclusion that any marriage would have to be deeply troubled because of it, but provided no proof that it was. I'm still stunned that the judge allowed it. |
| Name: | David Hayes |
| E-mail: | hayes1@sympatico.com |
| Comments: | Having recently seen The Staircase, I was struck by the odd perspective of this site. 1. It is a point-of-view documentary (like most documentaries). Having extensively researched stories, filmmakers, feature writers & nonfiction book writers come to some conclusions that inform the p.o.v. of their finished piece. Nothing unusual in that. 2. If the prosecution's side & people like daughter Caitlin are not presented as much as Michael Peterson & his supporters, it's because they either limited access to the filmmakers or refused to speak to them. 3. It provides counterweight to the media - esp people like CNN's Nancy Grace - whose coverage so often assumed guilt until proven innocent. Having seen the doc, I'm not sure myself whether to believe Peterson's story or not so clearly it's not just a 100% whitewash of the case. |
| Name: | Vance |
| E-mail: | webmaster@peterson-staircase.com |
| Comments: | CEC, you are sadly confused:
"…the defendant was proven to have had a million reasons to want his wife found dead at the bottom of a staircase." (I’m sure there are not one million. And in fact, you seem to only clearly list one – the money.) Yeah, the money -- the one million dollar insurance policy. "Michael knew there was no reasonable doubt he would be convicted of killing his wife." Pronounced guilty of murdering his wife, the man shrugged slightly and lowered his eyes. "Considering the lack of feathers in the hall, it's a ridiculous conception -- but it makes more sense than Michael's story that his wife just collapsed." Forensics investigators found over 10,000 drops of high-velocity blood spatter on the walls. The victim did not collapse and suddenly cover the hallway in blood. You know CEC -- it's safer for you to assume you don't understand something and ask, than to complain that it's wrong. |
| Name: | Linda |
| E-mail: | lnd_nthn@yahoo.com.au |
| Comments: | Didn't MP write a novel with the very death he committed?
It decribed how he would kill his wife with a blow? |
| Name: | Jackson |
| E-mail: | jacksonhaynes@hotmail.com |
| Comments: | I think this website is an important counterpoint to 'The Staircase'. I remember watching the film when it first aired on tv, and - although it is quite well made and interesting viewing - I found to be completely one-sided and biased in favour of the defence. I think the case is pretty cut and dried in that Peterson is guilty, and to me the point keeps coming back to this: What are the chances that the SAME person was the last person to be with a woman who ended up dead at the bottom of a flight of stairs after 'falling' down them, TWICE??? To me that more then just about anything else makes me HIGHLY suspect Peterson's guilt. I also agree with this website in that the documentary HEAVILY implied that he was being 'targeted' for being bisexual. I don't agree at all: The prosecution merely was presenting their case and was stating (truthfully) that the Peterson marriage wasn't the 'perfect fairytale' the defence claimed it to be. Marital infidelity is a MAJOR factor in many spousal homicides, and - even if that wasn't the case here - it was a valid point for the prosecution to raise, and I personally don't think Peterson's sexuality was a factor. |
| Name: | tm |
| Comments: | Have you seen the stairs? or the picture of her head? No way was this a collapse and fall. The blood goes half-way up the wall. There is blood all over the walls, not a single site of impact.
|
| Name: | cec |
| Comments: | I was very interested to find this site. You clearly have enough information to build a strong case against MP and the film makers’ point of view. HOWEVER you throw around personal speculations that undermine your factual arguments. I’m saying this because, again, I think you could really construct a strong, sound argument here. Don’t sabotage yourself. Some examples of what I mean:
"…the defendant was proven to have had a million reasons to want his wife found dead at the bottom of a staircase." (I’m sure there are not one million. And in fact, you seem to only clearly list one – the money.) "Michael knew there was no reasonable doubt he would be convicted of killing his wife." (If this was paired with a quote or something I might believe it…but he probably seriously doubted he would be convicted if he spent $1 million on a defense. Projecting your personal interpretation of MP's thoughts and feelings is especially damaging.) "Considering the lack of feathers in the hall, it's a ridiculous conception -- but it makes more sense than Michael's story that his wife just collapsed." (Why does this make more sense? It seems totally plausible that someone with severe blood loss might get dizzy upon standing and fall down. Again, I'm not arguing the factual merit here, just that your interjection undermines your case against MP because your statement is just personal speculation. If you want to combat it, include some research or facts to back it up.) These kinds of comments make your argument sound sensationalist and emotion-based, rather than fact-based. |
| Name: | Vance |
| E-mail: | webmaster@peterson-staircase.com |
| Comments: | The NC state medical examiner who did the autopsy determined it was murder. In 2003, twelve jurors agreed and found Michael Peterson guilty. The case was upheld on all legal appeals.
But now seven years later in 2011, you watch a movie and think you know better? Ridiculous. |
| Name: | Zara |
| Comments: | There was certainly reasonable doubt. How anyone can say otherwise is somewhat ridiculous. I have studied documentary as my major and that any documentary doesn't have an angle is of course untrue, merely by choosing what to film an angle is chosen. I personally wouldn't be shocked if the truth was that MP did commit the murder however regardless of how the doco was shot there is hard evidence within it to suggest this may not be the case.
Anyone who talks about the states beliefs of how the injuries were caused is simply ignoring the experts the defense introduced. Finally I cannot understand why this website exists. Obviously, regardless of how, two women have died tragically prematurely. Either MP did or did not murder them. He is now behind bars for life, a terrible place to be. Unless any of you really are as backward thinking to suggest capital punishment is necessary what more is there to do/say in terms of incriminating him? |
| Name: | TM |
| Comments: | Most of us watched the trial live. If you've only seen the documentary, you haven't seen what we have. Pick up Diane Fanning's book for the rest of the story (Written in Blood) and pick up Aphrodite Jone's book to see the autopsy photos of Diane's and Liz's heads. The wounds couldn't be more similar. |
| Name: | person |
| Comments: | the only information i have encountered regarding this case was from the documentary. with that being said, while the circumstances surrounding peterson's death are certainly peculiar, i don't think it's fair to say that they prosecution successfully produced concrete evidence and intelligent arguments that disallow reasonable doubt. michael peterson may not be innocent, but the defense didn't prove he was guilty. |
| Name: | TM |
| Comments: | I believe Liz's death was about the money but more importantly about control. He killed because he could...He took over those girls' lives because he could.
I see his relationship with PP and his military career (whatever that was at the time) as expendable...I don't see him killing Liz over sexual secrets....I really think he wanted to try to get away with it because he liked playing God in people's lives...It was just a progression of his total takeover of the Ratliffs. When she let him into her life, this was the end game. |
| Name: | Diane Stauder |
| E-mail: | dianestaud@earthlink.net |
| Comments: | No, MP did not want to have sex with women. He only wanted to have sex with men. He says he is bisexual but the only part of him that was hetrosexual was living the life of a hetrosexual. Being married, having kids, acting the part. But his real passion for sex was with men only. I firmly believe that Mrs. Ratcliff was killed in a heat of anger by MP because she threatened to expose his homosexuality and MP went into a rage and a homicide occured. MP guarded his homosexuality from being exposed to anyone. He even had difficulty talking about it. I think he was embarrassed about being a homosexual, wanted the like of a hetrosexual but couldn't resist his inner feelings of wanting to have sex with men. |
| Name: | TM |
| Comments: | They were testing the blowpoke because they incorrectly believed that Hardin's case was married to the blowpoke being the murder weapon. I think this backfired badly on them to dredge up a fauxpoke and then claim it was clean. |
| Name: | Vance |
| E-mail: | webmaster@peterson-staircase.com |
| Comments: | Diane Stauder:
All of that "testing" was done for Lestrade's camera. None of it was ever going to figure into a defense case. Peterson was never going to testify either. It was all for show. |
| Name: | Diane Stauder |
| E-mail: | dianestaud@earthlink.net |
| Comments: | But then you have to ask yourself. Why are they even testing the blowpoke for blood? If the defense team felt that he was innocent of this action then why is the testing even necessary? Obviously it wouldn't have any blood on it if Kathleen fell down the stair like MP claims. There would be no need to go through that whole testing phase! I watched the video again and it still amazes me the stupid stuff the defense did to defend MP. Like that scene where they put the tape recorder in the stairway to see if you could hear Kathleen screaming out at the pool! How ridiculous! It she had that much energy to scream for help she could have easily walked over to the telephone and call for help. After all she didn't have any broken bones to disable her ability to walk. And if she was alert enough to know she was injured and needed medical assistance she would know enough to go to the phone and call for an ambulance. |
| Name: | TM |
| Comments: | Diane, I don't doubt that he did it.
Re: the blowpoke: We don't know what the missing words were after "Whatever you used." It could have been whatever you used to clean the blowpoke...It also could be whatever you used to kill Kathleen. Whatever was used, it would have been heavy enough to do the damage of laceration without fracture but light enough for MP to wield at full force without bending or breaking the instrument. After seeing the autopsy pictures of KP and Liz, I strongly feel he used the same object (identical or another copy). The blowpoke clearly met all the criteria, but we can't place it at the scene of Liz's death. |
| Name: | dianna hunter |
| E-mail: | diannahunter64@yahoo.com |
| Comments: | this front page disturbs me; you're saying that prejudicial remarks are what convicted michael peterson. but it was NOT someone's offense at bisexuality that put this man in prison. it was evidence. EVIDENCE. he did it. he did it twice, in fact. he deserves punishment, in fact, more harsh than what he is receiving. |
| Name: | Diane Stauder |
| E-mail: | dianestaud@earthlink.net |
| Comments: | How many times do I have to say it? The blowpoke was used and it is proven on the video that MP made!!!! The defense team tested it for blood and David Rudolf actually says on the video, "Whatever you used, there is no blood on the blowpoke"!!!!!! Whatever you used!!!!!! If there was ever a new trial, which I highly doubt, the prosecution can use that video for evidence. And as for the person that watched the video and did research and still asks if Kathleen had any siblings and didin't know what their opinion was of MP? She must have been sleeping during the video because Kathleen's sister was a huge part in the investigation. |
| Name: | Vance |
| E-mail: | webmaster@peterson-staircase.com |
| Comments: | Hello,
Police knew the murder weapon was fairly heavy -- certainly heavier than a cooking utensil. The skin was not sliced or ripped open. It split open, not unlike (forgive the analogy) hitting a watermelon. While the murder weapon could have been a long BBQ fork or some other item -- it's important to note that the BLOWPOKE was suddenly missing. Nobody could figure out where the blowpoke was or why it would not be hanging near the fireplace where it had always been. Of course, years after the murder, the Petersons miraculously located a blowpoke . . . sitting against a wall in the basement. Oh! Here it is! |
| Name: | TM |
| Comments: | Vance, I followed this case on the CourtTV boards...
I wonder if they ruled out all common kitchen tools...I think a long BBQ fork would have done the type of damage to the scalp....I know at least one of the lacerations had a fork shape. It could not have been a heavy implement as that would have done more fracturing than laceration given the force of the blows that caused the blood to go so far up the wall. |
| Name: | Angel |
| Comments: | Anybody who believes in Michael Petersons innocence is as stupid as he is. He did it, He knows he did it and he tried unsuccesfully to get away with it just as he did in 1985 when he killed Liz. I have read more than just this website, I have also read ALL of the books published about the case and they all bring up one detail left out in court and evey where else, He spend an incresingly extra amount of time in the company of Liz after Geogre's death, was he consoling her or preying on her? Only Liz truly knows that answer and as we all know "Dead souls tell no tales" He comanded the "investgation" the morning Liz was discovered and convinced police and MP's it was merely an accidents despite the others at the sence seeing it differently. Hoe Liz's boots were still on, She removed them at the door, She always set out her girls' breakfast dishes prior to going to bed, Her table bare the morning she was discovered. Proof she was killed after returning home and before she could remove her boots and set her childrens breakfast table. Michael saw that he got away with murder once and when his meal ticket was drying up, saw a way out......MURDER.....Kill Kathleen, make it look like an accident, AGAIN and collect 1.4 million dollar. He was home free. He didn't bank on Durham, N.C. M.E's being smarter than him and the MP's in Germany. He lost, ALL of it including his freedom I only hope his death is as bad as the death he inflicted on Kathleen Hunt Atwater...Sorry she's not buried under Peterson and I will NOT call her Peterson here. She will forever be a Beautiful soul cruelly, and greedly killed by a monster she thought loved her. RIP Katleen. |
| Name: | Vance Holmes |
| E-mail: | webmaster@peterson-staircase.com |
| Comments: | Hello Annette:
In an extremely strange, extremely bizarre case, you have mention one of the strangest things of all: the killer's preservation of the crime scene. Peterson insisted the blood and horror be left as is. I suppose his excuse was that he didn't want evidence destroyed -- except that he maintained it was just an accident. If it was an accident, why would Michael want to preserve the terrible scene? The police and lawyers all had CAMERAS . . . so . . . there was really no need to leave the horrific blood splattered all over the walls for years. And yet . . . |
| Name: | Annette |
| E-mail: | hellonettie@hotmail.com |
| Comments: | I have a question, having just watched the documentary - why did the house remain blood spattered for so long? Was there a court order not to clean up properly? It seemed VERY strange. |
| Name: | facts |
| Comments: | For anyone who is concerned that Mike Peterson got shafted, the jury's decision was made on the following--
1. VERY SIGNIFICANT inconsistencies/problems in Mike's version of events. 2. WOUNDS on Kathleen deemed to be caused by a homicidal attack, not an accidental fall. Numerous angles & locations of the wounds, defensive wounds, etc. 3. BLOOD spatter analysis, esp. way high up on wall. 4. NO forensic EVIDENCE of any intruder. ** NO EVIDENCE of any owl ever being in the house (another defense theory brought out after the trial.) No feathers, no droppings, no seeing or hearing an owl as it tried to escape the house. |
| Name: | Here's Truth |
| Comments: | @ Gimme Some Truth....one more thing -- what people are doing here are expressing OPINIONS. No one here is trying to make this a court of LAW. But if you are NOT capable of convicting someone by sitting on a jury and listening to MOUNDS of circumstantial evidence over a period of MANY WEEKS, then NO ONE would ever be convicted, if YOU were on the jury. Most people aren't convicted based on emotions of jury members, but of course, emotions are felt by anyone with a human heart. |
| Name: | Lori |
| Comments: | @ Gimme Some Truth.....it sounds like what you are implying is that unless a person is caught on video tape in the act of murder,then there should NEVER be any convictions. After all, even human eyewitnesses can be fallible & evidence can be planted.
So, with that being said, circumstantial cases are mostly what society has to go on.....a reviewing of ALL the puzzle pieces to see if there is ENOUGH to make a decision beyond "reasonable" doubt. Without seeing the murders on video tape, there is simply NO WAY ELSE to do it, but thru circumstancial evidence. And yes, emotions do arise on both sides, but the hope is that the jury members are making objective decisions based on all the evidence, apart from any emotions one might feel. And in spite of emotions, there is not too much mob "justice" these days, thank goodness. Consider this....until we have sit in the seat of the juror, throughout the entire trial, we, the public, simply don't hear or see ALL that is presented. Additionally, often time, MUCH information gets ruled as "inadmissable" while defense attorneys can say ANYTHING they want...no matter how deceptive, even without ANY evidence, just to try to muddy the waters and get their client acquitted, based on emotions, confusion, smoke & mirrors, etc. Bottom line...prosecutors don't have to PROVE motive, they can suggest possible motives, but they don't have to prove motive which can often be obscure. As unfortunate that it is that most cases are circumstancial....it is still better than nothing.....otherwise, few if ANY murderers would ever be taken off the streets. So how's that for some truth? And regarding Mike Peterson's case....he was NOT convicted based on his sexual issues....that was simply brought out to suggest possible motive. Regarding Liz Ratliff's death, while many of us DO believe that he killed her, it's not likely that he will ever be tried or convicted for her death due to insufficient evidence. Period. But her death was brought out to show that he at LEAST had knowledge of how to reproduce such a scene. |
| Name: | Gimme Some Truth |
| Comments: | You know, ever since this country allowed people like Jerry Springer and Judge Judy to broadcast, the effect was a serious dumbing-down of our society . . .
IRRELEVANT RANT EDITED |
| Name: | Lori |
| E-mail: | lulubelle1963new@comcast.net |
| Comments: | Vance, you are completely right about the girls. They had no control over who raised them, and so we must take that into account. Hopefully, someday, they will be able to see the truth.
Anyway, I've read thru a lot of the comments, and seen certain theories about what happened. Here's a theory I have... I remember reading that shortly before Liz was murdered, she was feeling spooked, like someone was watching her & making prank hang-up calls...someone playing manipulative mind games. The most likely candidate would be Mike Peterson. It's very possible that he had secret feelings of attraction for her, and after all that he'd done to help her (sociopaths don't do good deeds out of the "goodness" of their hearts), he "expected", perhaps even demanded, SOMETHING in return. Being the narcissitic, horny hound dog that he was, he may very well have made sexual advances towards her that night, which she refused, and it enraged him. Just another theory. Fact-- Liz had ALL her doors and windows locked, and she would have ONLY opened that front door to someone she trusted. The neighbor lady saw Mike leaving late that night in a hurry. Earlier in the comments, I read where someone was thinking that maybe Mike didn't like George because there had been some bi-sexual thing between them. I don't know, but I rather doubt it. Liz and George ADORED each other, they met in 1980 and married in early 1981. And George had already gone thru a divorce not too long before from his college sweetheart. Anyway, bottom line is, if Mike resented George for some reason, it could be ANY PETTY reason-- it wouldn't take much, esp. when you're dealing with a narcissitic sociopath. I do wish we knew more about George's death & the trace amounts of cyanide found in his system. I don't know if or how something like that could be ingested accidentally. ?? Well, thought I would just share those thoughts. |
| Name: | Vance Holmes |
| E-mail: | webmaster@peterson-staircase.com |
| Comments: | Hello Lori:
Thank you so much for your comments. While what you say about Elizabeth Ratliff's girls is true, to be fair -- none of us can really know what it is to be in their position. We know things in hindsight that the sisters could not have known or have pieced together as they were growing up. And we certainly now know Michael Peterson is a cunning and conniving criminal with serious personality disorders. His legacy of lies will continue to play out for at least a generation. In time, the Ratliff sisters' story may change. |
| Name: | Lori H. |
| E-mail: | lulubelle1963new@comcast.net |
| Comments: | I can't help but feel very distressed about the attitude of the Ratliff girls towards their mother, Liz Ratliff, who clearly loved them so much. They seem totally unconcerned about seeking the truth in her death. And sadly, Elizabeth had wanted them to be raised in Europe (a part of her will), but Peterson took them away from Europe very shortly after their mother's death. And it seems that he didn't do ANYTHING to help them remember their mother at all. How tragic that they would be so blindly loyal to this man.
Frankly, it seems that many of us, who never met Liz Ratliff, care more about her than her own daughters do. :( I feel a connection with Liz, since I was living in Bonn, about 2 hours away while she and George and the girls were living in Klein-Gerau (the short lived, but happy life). |
| Name: | Lori H. |
| E-mail: | lulubelle1963new@comcast.net |
| Comments: | Does anyone know if there is an investigation into Liz's death ongoing? I read somewhere that German police & US military were planning to look into it after Peterson was convicted back in 2003.
Also, was there ever a thorough investigation into George Ratliff's death? Traces of cyanide were found in his body. Doesn't that seem like a murder? |
| Name: | Vance Holmes |
| E-mail: | webmaster@peterson-staircase.com |
| Comments: | Hey Roger:
There's no such thing as "free speech" -- or a free lunch. This website is costing me good money. If you don't like the way I run my website -- get your own. |
| Name: | Adam Petch |
| Comments: | Was the documentary really that biased? I'm not sure, of course the film maker has since let his views be known but I was not really swayed either way by the film - It focused on the defense team and the personal life of Peterson so it was always going to be a subjective point of view.
The defense tried to explain the death but they were very unsure about the exact events (before the trial they openly admit this) and so they latched on to multiple falls and death by accident. They did this to counter the clear view held by the prosecutors that it was murder committed by Peterson. This is a huge factor - unexplained versus explained. If Peterson didn't kill his wife then there are numerous (almost infinite) ways in which she could have died even if they are highly improbable. It's scary to consider how many innocent people could have been convicted because of a "freak" occurrence. But I guess law has to work on probability because the alternative would be a more dangerous society. The film also highlighted the problem with experts - In my country (Britain) there has been some high profile cases recently about the use and motives of experts and the clashes they have with each other. When 2 experts clash at least 1 has to be wrong so again it has to resort back to probability. The prosecutors opening and closing statements to the jury seemed so patronizing and overly emotional that I had to laugh - they were only matched by how unemotional the defense team appeared to be. And the media around the case should hang their heads in shame - Britain, I fear, is going the same way. The press are so obsessed with biased gossip and misguided reports. Despite all the circus I hope justice was done. I am 99% sure it was but that 1% always nags me. |
| Name: | Diane Stauder |
| E-mail: | dianestaud@earthlink.net |
| Comments: | What ever happened to Ron Girette or Gilette, the investigator for David Rudolf? I love that job he had. He didn't seem to be doing anything. Just standing around, listening, giving his 2 cents. All that evidence gathering that the team did. None of it made any sense. All a waste of time and money. Boy, if I were MP and spent over $800,000 dollars on a defense I would be mad. They seem to be laughing alot, eating, drinking, and having a good'ole time. Lovely! |
| Name: | RBC |
| E-mail: | N/A |
| Comments: | In addition to my previous comment, I always thought that the murder weapon would have to be an object that was easily at hand considering that this murder was probably committed "in the heat of the moment" after an intense fight when Kathleen found out about MP's bisexuality while using his computer that night. A kitchen utensil with a long, rounded handle, heavy enough to inflict lacerations to the skull bone, but not heavy enough to fracture the skull, held not by the handle, but by the opposite end to allow the contact to the skull be with the handle, cause the lacerations, then easily be cleaned up and put away in the kitchen drawer never to be suspected as the murder weapon.
Also, one of the most disturbing pieces of evidence in this case to me was the bloody footprint of MP's tennis shoe sole on the back side of Kathleen's clothes indicating that he either kicked her backside with his bloody shoe or he held her down with his bloody-footed shoe while he beat her head with an object causing the blood spatter on the walls. Very incriminating & disturbing. |
| Name: | RBC |
| E-mail: | mikeandbeckyclouser@cox.net |
| Comments: | This is an incredible website that states the truth and exposes the distortions,
the omissions, and the bias of the documentary makers of "The Staircase." After watching the murder trial first hand and then watching the documentary, I was appalled by the apparent intentional distortions to manipulate the viewer into believing that Peterson was innocent, ALL the people of "The South" are bigoted, racist, homophobes, and that justice was out of reach for all the bisexuals in America. The would have us believe that Peterson was wrongly targeted from the start and that all the evidence in the case was concocted and fabricated. This case was about justice for Kathleen Peterson and thank God the prosecutors kept their eye on the ball and achieved that. |
| Name: | Louisewcc |
| E-mail: | louisewcc@hotmail.com |
| Comments: | To the comment about if the girls knew Michael killed the girls. I think they didnt want to believe it.
Its more the point that.... the sons knew Michael killed Kathleen. They knew, and you can tell in the dvd. And they helped cover it up. Thats why Michael didnt want them on the stand in the court case. |
| Name: | SJ |
| Comments: | I watched this documentary several years ago and only recently decided to look it up to find out more. I'm not sure if this has been posted here before or even if it was mentioned in the documentary but what did Kathleen Peterson's family think of Michael Peterson? I mean, were her parents still alive? Did she have any siblings, and if so what were their thoughts? Did they believe Michael killed Kathleen or did they believe it was an accident?
Oh and Michael Peterson - Guilty as hell |
| Name: | Anne Marie |
| E-mail: | AnneMarie.Langley@gmail.com |
| Comments: | There is most definitely such a place as "The University of Chapel Hill". It is located in Chapel Hill, North Carolina and is one of the oldest, premier state universities in the state with one of the most successful and popular college basketball teams in the nation, the "Tarheels". Michael Jordan played for the Tarheels prior to joining the NBA. I have literally been to this University's campus - it exists.
|
| Name: | Vance |
| E-mail: | webmaster@peterson-staircase.com |
| Comments: | Wrong Anna Marie!
You're thinking of the University of North Carolina. Chapel Hill is just one campus. Regardless -- Poncet admits to being at the same school as Peterson. He's just arguing about the exact dates. |
| Name: | Diane Stauder |
| E-mail: | dianestaud@earthlink.net |
| Comments: | Why does everyone not think that the murder weapon was actually the blowpoke that was presented in court? Why, because David Rudolf said it wasn't? I think that was a dumb move on the lawyers part to introduce the blowpoke. Watch the video again!!! Listen very carefully to David when he is talking to MP on the cellphone after they tested the blowpoke for blood. (Which by the way, if MP didn't do it than why did they test the blowpoke for blood?). He clearly says, "No, there's no blood on the blowpoke. Whatever you used, there's no blood on the blowpoke". That is definitive proof to me that the blowpoke was indeed the murder weapon. He clearly says, "whatever you used". Used to clean the blowpoke?????? |
| Name: | Vance Holmes |
| E-mail: | webmaster@peterson-staircase.com |
| Comments: | I think the desperate "owl theory" actually makes more sense than Peterson's story in court, that his wife accidentally fell. |
| Name: | Anne |
| Comments: | Vance,
what do you think about the owl theory ? |
| Name: | Vance Holmes |
| E-mail: | webmaster@peterson-staircase.com |
| Comments: | His watch? No. Peterson wielded some sort of fairly heavy weapon. The murder weapon lacerated his wife's head in (at least) seven different places. |
| Name: | Anne from paris |
| Comments: | Hello vance
could Michael p have killed his wife with his watch? Thank you |
| Name: | Diane Stauder |
| E-mail: | dianestaud@earthlink.net |
| Comments: | What issues????? |
| Name: | Becs |
| Comments: | I find it interesting that not one of you are focussing on the many issues found with the crime scene investigation conducted.
You also seem extremely judgemental of the daughters - unless you have been in a similar situation I don't think you can judge their reactions. |
| Name: | Vance Holmes |
| E-mail: | webmaster@peterson-staircase.com |
| Comments: | I do not believe the Ratliff sisters were "brainwashed." However, since the time they were very small children, they have been in the care of an ego-maniacal, homicidal sociopath. Nobody knows their pain. I think it's fair to judge the sisters' bizarre decision to play starring roles in Michael's murder movie -- but the outrageous circumstances must be considered.
Whatever one may think of the Ratliff sisters, they certainly had nothing to do with the brutal beating death of Kathleen Peterson. |
| Name: | Diane Stauder |
| E-mail: | dianestaud@earthlink.net |
| Comments: | I totally agree that the girls are obnoxious. They appear to be in denial about the whole event. It is much less painful to defend MP than to come to the realization that he is responsible for them being orphans. I think a good counselor is in need here. They keep referring to their mother as their "birth" mother. I NEVER refer to my mother as my "birth" mother. Considering the fact that they were never legally adopted by MP or Kathleen! |
| Name: | Pilar |
| E-mail: | fledermaus@gmail.com |
| Comments: | Do you think the Ratliff girls know he murdered Kathleen? The first time I watched The Staircase I was floored by their affect. They seemed not to care a bit that their biological mother even existed much less was probably murdered by the man they were defending. Clayton, the Duke University pipe-bomber, and Todd I find less interesting than the Ratliff girls. The Ratliff girls stymie me. Why in the face of the mountain of evidence against Michael Peterson would they cling so desperately to him?
At first I thought they had been brainwashed. But what if, what IF they actually knew he killed her and didn't care? They don't seem to care about their biological mother, so why care about someone not even related to them? I wonder if what they were thinking about was Kathleen's money and insurance. If Michael Peterson were proven to have killed her, no insurance money. No inheritance. These are not little wilting, weeping flowers we're talking about. Everyone I've discussed this movie with agrees with me that the Ratliff girls come off as quite obnoxious. And used to a certain lifestyle. |
| Name: | Jane |
| E-mail: | tanchen14@163.com |
| Comments: | There exist reasonable doubt indeed,but as a human being,I don't think the same accident will happen twice,It's too strange... |
| Name: | Vance |
| E-mail: | webmaster@peterson-staircase.com |
| Comments: | You would have made a good defense exhibit if you were married to Michael Peterson. Otherwise -- what would be the point?
You have an injury from an accident. Well . . . Kathleen Peterson didn't have an accident. She was murdered. So how does your scab relate to this murder case? This isn't a game. This is about the very real murder of a very real human being. |
| Name: | dadgum |
| E-mail: | momonwheels@ctc.net |
| Comments: | I have also seen the trial, and the series..yet here I sit with a healing scab in the TOP of my head, after a fall. Go figure..I suppose I might have made a good defense exhibit.. |
| Name: | always wondered?? |
| E-mail: | lpcurious@aol.com |
| Comments: | I've watched the 'Staircase' videos numerous times, saw the FULL live broadcast of the trial on CourtTV, read both books, and have seen all the documentary shows...is it possible that MP struck KP and/or ER with his belt -- somewhat sinched up in his hands/wound around his hands (i.e. with limited striking distance)? It seems to me an easily accessible weapon that could inflict tears/abrasions without fracturing the skull.
Without a dout he's guilty - not diputing that at all!! -just trying to determine how he could have committed the same crime [twice] without having the murder weapon found... Thanks for considering and commenting!!! |
| Name: | Poetic*Justice |
| E-mail: | webmaster@peterson-staircase.com |
| Comments: | To Wondering:
Thank you for your thoughtful comments. I'm not sure if all of your theories are correct, but you have mentioned some very key points, not commonly understood about the Peterson case. 1. Yes, Mrs. Peterson's head contacted the stairs. The evidence clearly demonstrated that. However, blood spatter evidence also proved that at least 3 of the most violent blows to the head happened "in the open space of the stairwell" -- not on or near the steps. In all, the blunt force trauma produced 7 bone-deep lacerations and matching bruises. Medical examiners knew from the injury patterns that a long, thin, rounded, (blunt) instrument was used to strike Mrs. Peterson's head. She was struck vertically and horizontally on both the back and TOP of her head. James McElhaney -- whose findings were never rebutted by the defense -- testified that it was physically IMPOSSIBLE for a woman to forcefully contact the top of her own head during any fall . . . of any kind. Peterson definitely used a weapon. There's no doubt about that. Still, you are correct in saying Michael also used his hands (and feet) as weapons. Kathleen Peterson's facial bruises, chipped tooth and neck fracture were not all caused by the thin, blunt instrument. 2. There was no investigation of Elizabeth Ratliff's murder. No one ever looked for a weapon. However, an autopsy showed that she too sustained at least 7 lacerations, in place and manner nearly identical to Mrs. Peterson's wounds. Michael was obviously using some sort of practiced technique to kill Elizabeth Ratliff, since the same unusual type of wounding was found on his wife. (Some military fighters were known to have employed a chopping motion with the bayonet for a close-combat technique known as "Stop and Drop.") 3. Peterson was in a rage. His blows resulted in over 10,000 blood spatters up and down the walls. Evidence proved there were actually two separate beatings which occurred at least 20 minutes apart. It's important to note that -- just as you say -- Michael maintained SOME level of control throughout the killing. The lack of skull fracture, lack of weapon "blow-back" staining and other curiosities proved that he calculated and timed his hits. Kathleen Peterson did not die from Michael's beating. The autopsy showed that she died approximately two hours AFTER the battering, from blood loss. ============================ James McElhaney, emeritus professor of engineering - Duke University "You can't hit the flat stair surface with the top of your head in a fall." "Two of the wounds could be attributed to contacting a horizontal edge like the stairs, but the others are in the wrong direction and start in the wrong place." "The injuries, lacerations, bruises, contusions . . . to my mind, are inconsistent with a fall down the steps, but are consistent with a beating with a blunt instrument -- most likely a rounded blunt instrument." "The lack of skull fracture and brain injury tells me that this was a relatively light object striking the head to achieve the velocity necessary for a laceration, versus a fall down the steps, where -- the velocity of the head necessary to lacerate like this -- I would also expect to cause brain injury and - or skull fracture." http://www.vanceholmes.com/court/trial_m_peterson2.html ============================ |
| Name: | Wondering |
| E-mail: | * |
| Comments: | Is it at all possible that the murder weapon is more obvious than we think?
Both women found dead at the bottom of a staircase. I don't think both had blowpokes in their homes, yet both had similar-looking mortal wounds. A trained military man would know how to efficiently kill with his bare hands. Could it be that both women had their heads bashed AGAINST THE STAIRCASE ITSELF? Think of the beauty of that, to a killer, especially a narcissistic one. Everyone would be looking for a portable weapon while the actual weapon might be right there, staring everyone in the face. And, the killings would not have to have been carried out with rage, but instead as very methodical and cold-blooded assaults – this would help to insure that the skull would not be damaged as it would be from a heated attack, and thereby more likely to deter suspicion of murder. I wonder if either woman’s scalp lacerations were ever compared with the edge/shape of the stairs themselves? Or of the railing? Thoughts anyone? |