A Forensic Files Murder That Went on a Binge
(“A Novel Idea,” Forensic Files)
Note: You can listen to this post as a podcast
If Forensic Files got an annual performance review, it would always exceed expectations in telling a story in 22 minutes without making viewers feel cheated — but at the same time leaving them interested in finding out more.
Forensic Files produced “A Novel Idea” back in 2006, but any murder story that includes well-educated mansion owners plus a cheerful male escort on the witness stand is sure to be revisited many times.
Pop-culture phenom. Over the years, Dateline has continually covered the case of how writer Michael Peterson’s wife, Kathleen, ended up dead at the base of a staircase in their 14-room house. The NBC series most recently broadcast an update of “Down the Back Staircase” in 2017.
But public interest in the case didn’t really explode until the following year, when Netflix expanded and updated a documentary by French director Jean-Xavier de Lestrade to create a 13-part bingefest called The Staircase.
For this week, I looked into what’s happened to Michael Peterson since the Netflix series ended in 2018 and whether a theory that a rogue owl played a role in Kathleen’s death ever got any traction. But first, here’s a recap of “A Novel Idea” along with extra information drawn from internet research:
Full house. Michael Ivor Peterson graduated from Duke University, where he was editor of the school newspaper, then joined the Marines and earned silver and bronze stars for service in Vietnam.
As a young man, he divided his time between North Carolina and Germany. He and his first wife, schoolteacher Patricia Sue Peterson, had sons Todd and Clayton — then acquired two daughters, Margaret and Martha, when the couple’s friend Liz McKee Ratliff died. Ratliff had assigned Michael as guardian of her kids and left him her entire estate.
Michael later became a novelist, weaving his real-life experiences in the military into the plots of his books.
He and Patricia split up, and he began a relationship with his neighbor Kathleen Hunt Atwater in Durham, North Carolina, in 1992.
Brainy bunch. Kathleen Hunt grew up in Lancaster, Pennsylvania, and was so bright that she took advanced Latin classes at a nearby college while still in McCaskey High School, according to the Lancaster New Era newspaper. She graduated first in her class.
She was the first woman accepted into Duke University’s school of engineering. At the time of her death, she was a vice president at Nortel Networks at the company’s Research Triangle Park offices. She had a net worth of around $2 million, according to Forensic Files.
By the time Michael and Kathleen became a couple, his two daughters and Kathleen’s daughter from her first marriage, Caitlin Atwater, were already good friends.
Hosts with the most. Michael and Kathleen married in 1997. By then, one of Michael’s books, A Time for War, had made its way onto the New York Times bestseller list and generated enough cash to pay for the Colonial Revival-style house containing the now-famous staircase.
The couple combined their families into one household in the 5-bedroom 5½-bath abode in the Forest Hills neighborhood of Durham.
By all reports, Michael and Kathleen enjoyed a close, happy marriage and were sought-after guests on the local social scene. The New York Times would later describe Michael as having a “theatrical personality.” Kathleen was a live wire, too. The couple threw dinner parties for dozens of friends at their spread, which included a swimming pool with decorative fountains.
Horrifying discovery. But Michael hit a rough patch when he decided to run for mayor of Durham. It came out that a leg injury he said happened during battle actually came from a car accident. He lost the election.
Still, there was no serious drama until Dec. 9, 2001, when Michael Peterson made a desperate 911 call to report his wife had fallen down the stairs but was still breathing.
Kathleen was dead by the time first responders got there.
Michael said he and Kathleen were relaxing by their pool, and she went inside to work on the computer. He stayed outside to smoke for 45 minutes or so and found her at the bottom of the stairs when he came back in.
Charnel house. She had been drinking and was wearing floppy shoes, so she probably tripped, Michael told police.
But there was one circumstance that Michael Peterson couldn’t explain away.
The accident scene was a bloodbath — inconsistent with a tumble down the stairs. Homicide detectives were called to the Peterson residence.
They noted that Michael was wearing shorts and a T-shirt. Investigators later brought in a forensic meteorologist who determined it was 51 to 55 degrees outside that night, a little too cold for beach clothes, which made investigators question whether he was really at the pool when Kathleen fell.
Son uncooperative. That part of the prosecution’s case doesn’t seem impressive. Everyone knows at least one wacky guy who wears shorts in cold weather. (And those investigators must have had money to burn — they could have looked online or asked an autistic savant to recall the temperature that evening.)
But other evidence pointed convincingly to Michael’s guilt. Paramedics said that Kathleen’s blood had congealed, suggesting she died hours before he called 911.
Todd Peterson, 25, was at the house when the police came but refused to talk to them, according to Forensic Files.
And it looked as though someone had tried to clean up blood from the wall near the stairs.
Not inebriated. The police found blood splatter between the legs of Michael’s shorts and his bloody footprint on Kathleen’s clothes, which suggested he was standing over her and beating her.
Although testing would later confirm that Kathleen had some alcohol in her system, it was nowhere near the stagger and face-plant level.
Oh, and one more little thing: Investigators found thousands of gay male porn images and hookup conversations on Michael’s computer.
Email trail. In one of his messages, Michael wrote that he was happily married to a “dynamite” wife but that he was “very” bisexual. Other online correspondence allegedly proved he was trying to hook up with men on the side, including a chipper prostitute called Brad.
Prosecutors would later contend that Kathleen stumbled upon the trove of photos and messages while using Michael’s computer — she had left her own machine at work that day. She confronted Michael about cheating on her, there was an argument, and he beat her to death with a fireplace implement, they alleged. He made a futile attempt to get rid of blood evidence and then called 911, the prosecution contended.
According to Power, Privilege, and Justice, which produced a 2004 episode about the case titled “Murder He Wrote,” Peterson went upstairs to work on the computer while police were still on the murder scene. Perhaps he was trying to delete some files.
Insurance jackpot. In addition to the salacious activity, investigators discovered evidence of financial woes in the family. Michael hadn’t generated any income in two years, and Kathleen was the mainstay.
The couple had three daughters in college and credit card debt of $142,000. The value of Kathleen’s Nortel stock had dropped from more than $2 million at its peak to $50,000.
But Kathleen had life insurance worth $1.2 million to $1.8 million, with Michael as the beneficiary.
Then, yet another bombshell came up. Investigators found out how Liz Ratliff, Margaret and Martha’s mother, died.
On Nov. 25, 1985, when Michael was living in Germany and married to his first wife, Ratliff turned up dead at the bottom of a staircase — just as Kathleen Peterson did 16 years later.
Missing murder weapon. Previously, Michael had told people Liz Ratliff died from a brain hemorrhage, never mentioning a fall on the stairs, according an interview with Kathleen Peterson’s sister, Candace Zamperini, on Power, Privilege, and Justice.
The authorities exhumed Liz Ratliff’s body in 2003 and discovered multiple scalp lacerations, similar to those found on Kathleen Peterson.
Ultimately, no charges involving Ratliff were brought, but North Carolina used the information about her death to strengthen the Kathleen Peterson case, which lacked a murder weapon. Police believed it was a fireplace blow poke that someone took outside to hide, leaving bloodstains on the door.
Nonetheless, all five of Michael’s children believed in his innocence at first. Caitlin Atwater, Katherine’s daughter from her first marriage, later switched sides.
Call-guy talks. Friends of Liz Ratliff, who lived on the same German military base as Michael and his first wife, testified about the bloodiness of the scene of her demise. A medical examiner testified that Ratliff’s cause of death was homicide via blunt force trauma.
And as if the trial needed more sordidness, Brad the hooker was called to the stand, where he congenially answered the prosecutor’s questions about his services. They ranged from simple companionship to “just about anything under the sun” sexually.
The defense, led by David Rudolf — the same lawyer who represented NFL player Rae Carruth in his murder trial — had some impressive courtroom drama to offer, too. Forensic expert Henry Lee gave a live in-court splatter demonstration to refute some of the blood evidence against Michael.
Team Michael also furnished a fireplace blow poke they said they found in the house. It had cobwebs on it but no blood, which appeared to snuff out the prosecution’s theory that the implement acted as the murder weapon.
He’s a SHU-in. Michael claimed that Kathleen had been suffering from blackouts due to stress. Nortel had forced her to lay off some well-liked employees, according to an AP account from May 22, 2002. Kathleen worried that she would lose her own $145,000-a-year job amid the downsizing, the AP reported.
Nonetheless, in the end, there was just too much evidence against Michael Peterson. His 2003 trial ended in a first-degree murder conviction and a sentence of life without parole.
Off he went to North Carolina’s Correctional Facility in Nash.
Corrections officers at the prison didn’t always find him as charming as his old dinner party friends did, and he earned some time in solitary for mouthing off, according to the Raleigh News & Observer.
Tide turns. A 2009 motion for a new trial based on the owl attack theory was unsuccessful.
Then, after serving eight years in prison, Michael got a huge break.
He won the right to a new trial after authorities discovered that “expert” prosecution witness Saami Shaibani had misrepresented his own professional credentials. And the happy hustler was off the table too — the seizure of Peterson’s computer messages was ruled unlawful, so Brad couldn’t testify again. Plus the death of Liz Ratliff in Germany was deemed inadmissible.
Irresistible deal. North Carolina released Michael Peterson on bond in 2011.
In 2017, the then-73-year-old avoided a second trial by taking an Alford plea to voluntary manslaughter in return for six years of house arrest.
But there was no 9,429-square-foot palatial home with a redwood-paneled author’s study for Michael to return to. The family had sold the Cedar Street showplace, reportedly the largest house in Durham. Michael moved into a two-bedroom condo, according to reporting from Cosmopolitan on June 11, 2018.
Marked man. So what about the owl? The Cosmopolitan story includes information from ornithology experts who believe a barred owl could have tangled its claws in Kathleen’s hair and made the gashes in her head that prosecutors alleged came from a metal implement. Kathleen might have fallen down the stairs while struggling to extricate herself from the bird of prey’s talons, they opined.
Nonetheless, Michael Peterson’s lawyers never brought up the owl theory in the courtroom — it was too bizarre and potentially fodder for, well, hoots of laughter.
Instead, Michael laid the blame for his murder conviction on humans. The police were out to get him because he criticized them in columns he wrote for the Herald-Sun before Kathleen’s death, he told Dateline.
Time for a tome. So what’s happened to Michael Peterson since the 2018 Netflix series turned his story into an international entertainment sensation?
In April 2019, an extensive News & Observer story by Andrew Carter reported that Michael had written an e-book titled Behind the Staircase to exonerate himself, with any profits going toward charity. If Michael received any money for the literary effort, it would have to go toward a $25 million award Caitlin Atwater won against him, he said.
Michael also told the News & Observer that well-to-do friends from his and Kathleen’s napkin-ring and place-card days had deserted him. He did find himself a post-lockup girlfriend, however, in one of the editors of The Staircase. The couple lived together for a time after his release, he said.
Sociological errands. Also in 2019, Michael Peterson made a two-part appearance on Dr. Phil. Although skeptical, the TV psychologist gave Michael a chance to defend himself.
Michael told Dr. Phil McGraw that medical reports confirmed Liz Ratliff died of a stroke. He also explained that after Kathleen’s death, he engaged legal help immediately — a move that raised suspicion at the time — only because his son insisted upon it, calling in Michael’s lawyer brother, Bill Peterson.
A video accompanying the in-depth News & Observer piece gave Michael an opportunity to talk about his everyday post-prison life. He mentioned receiving a chilly reception from the primarily white upper middle class shoppers at Whole Foods. But at Target, a less affluent, more diverse crowd welcomes him because they know firsthand how unfair the law can be, he said.
Margaret, Martha, Todd, and Clayton also believe the justice system failed their father. Although I tend to agree with the prosecution that Michael Peterson is responsible for Kathleen Peterson’s and Liz Ratliff’s deaths, it’s still sweet to see the loyalty of his children and their willingness to accept him as he is.
That’s all for this week. Until next time, cheers. — RR
Watch the Forensic Files episode on YouTube
Thanks, Rebecca. Funnily enough, I was reading about this case (again) today, before your post arrived.
Like you, I think Peterson’s a liar. Which is the more plausible: that an owl attacked his wife or he did, in circumstances where (i) he was apparently broke and may have wanted her insurance (given her income was then precarious too); (ii) he was seeing a gay prostitute and she may have discovered it. We know he’s capable of lying for gain, as he did – stupidly – over the medals for office.
His family may support him publically, but what they think privately we don’t know… At the very least, on pressing they’d have to admit that they’re ‘troubled’ by the owl, the rogue intruder, and the gay prostitute… My guess is that they’re content to believe there’s a doubt and to give the benefit of it (publically, anyway).
What we can say is he was very fortunate to get away with eight years. And his ‘friends’ at Wal-Mart, or wherever, may overlook that his situation’s not the same as some of them: he was educated and affluent, affording relatively good legal representation (one presumes). This is an advantage in the US legal system notoriously, in spite of which he was found guilty – for the good reason that the evidence pointed firmly to him. If, however, he finds mutual, if faux, solidarity with those genuinely more likely to have been ‘railroaded,’ so be it. They’re merely foolish; he’s a murderer.
Hi, I 100% believe that Peterson is guilty. Got away with it once, thought he’d try it again. The bloody footprint on Kathleen’s body, the blood spatter on the inside of his shorts and the clean-up attempt are enough to show without a reasonable doubt that he was there when the murder occurred. The only issue I have is the uncooperative son. What was he hiding? Did he commit the murder and his dad took the rap? Did Peterson commit the murder and the son saw it happen? Did the son hide the murder weapon?
I wonder if the son will ever talk about what he knows/doesn’t know?
Tim: I suggest the most likely interpretation – assuming he wasn’t part of the murder – is that he either had a suspicion his father did it or knew he did (because his father confessed to him or he knew about a raging argument between his parents – something like that), and worried that this would come over or come out under interview, given that he wanted to stand by his father.
That said, I don’t know what he actually did or didn’t do that constitutes his reputation as ‘unhelpful.’ Could it be wrong? Do we know the police found him uncooperative?
As terrible as this crime is, I can just about believe that a son/daughter having lost one parent to death trying to protect the other – even if s/he believes the parent guilty of mariticide.
When the fetid water drains from his pool of life Peterson will have nowhere to hide, no more skittles & unicorn-laced tales to spin and he will have to account for his greed, avarice and especially the murders of two people who trusted him.
Fetid I’d say excepting his service in Vietnam. His being awarded the Silver and Bronze Stars, the former being exclusively given *only* for significant bravery/heroism in the face of the enemy generally involving a lot of incoming ordnance, the Bronze for a lesser degree of the same and/or exemplary service in a combat zone is a testament to his bravery.
He was certifiably a courageous man at one point, then probably a sense of hubris and entitlement from a few books and lux lifestyle took over. Plus a murder under his belt he got away with?
Also why does a man who has earned the Silver and Bronze stars for combat heroism have to misrepresent a leg injury? He had the cred already, embellishment not required…and yet he did and got caught offsides. Speaks volumes of what he’d become. A greedy murderer. And btw, if you want to get serious cred in prison Peterson, leave the guards be and start banging on the baddest criminals there and bring them down hard. What you’re doing is like spitballing the teacher. Juvenile and pointless.
False logic: no evidence that he “got away” with anything with his first wife. Reasonable doubt in legal terms doesn’t apply to innocence, it applies to claims of guilt. And any intelligent person knows to not engage with the police without an attorney present – idiots sometimes wear badges.
How do you know he didn’t have a lawyer present? He may have failed to engage with police with one present..
“…no evidence that he “got away” with anything with his first wife.” You go too far.
Circumstantial evidence is SOME evidence, that relies on an inference to connect it to a conclusion of fact. By contrast, direct evidence supports the truth of an assertion directly = ie, without need for any additional evidence or inference. On its own, circumstantial evidence allows for more than one explanation. Different pieces of circumstantial evidence may be required, so that each corroborates the conclusions drawn from the others. Together, they may more strongly support one particular inference over another. An explanation involving circumstantial evidence becomes more likely once alternative explanations have been ruled out.
Reasonable doubt is tied into circumstantial evidence as circumstantial evidence is evidence that relies on an inference, and reasonable doubt was put in place so that the circumstantial evidence against someone in a criminal or civil case must be enough to convict someone fairly. Reasonable doubt means that there must be clear and convincing evidence of what the person has done. Therefore, the circumstantial evidence against someone may not be enough, but it can contribute to other decisions made concerning the case.
Similarities in the deaths of Peterson’s two wives certainly constitute circumstantial evidence of murder that should be explored – as they were – albeit that they fail to reach the criminal standard.
Ultimately, what constitutes evidence is a matter for argument if it’s not a matter of fact, and it’s not irrelevant to consider the nature of the first wife’s unusual death in the light of the second wife’s unusual death. It was entirely reasonable that the prosecution would use the earlier’s circumstances to throw light on the later’s…
Peterson’s first wife Patty is still alive! It was his friend’s wife that died! Liz l have a suspicion about his son also! I do believe that Mike was covering up for his son!!!!
Agreed that is why he said he was innocent because he is but covering for son, good dad.
His first wife didn’t die. Patty was in the entire documentary. It was his best friend’s wife who died in Germany.
The woman in Germany was his neighbor. His first wife is not dead.
The neighbor he was sleeping with, and the one who left him her entire estate and the care of her young children.
The details are important.
How is your opinion worth sharing when you assume the first woman who died was also his wife? These comments, my god. No wonder juries convict innocent people, if people on the internet can’t even get basic facts right.
K: One swallow doesn’t make a summer. One immaterial error – it doesn’t really matter whether she was a woman he was close to (she was; and who named him in her will) or his wife – changes nothing. The point is that these were two women he was close, from whom he could materially gain, and whose deaths were very similar (down to the scratches on the scalps).
‘No wonder juries convict innocent people, if people on the internet can’t even get basic facts right.’: a rather strange remark. Since when did juries get their information from the internet rather than court? They explicitly must not get it from anywhere else, and certainly not the web! Think about what you’ve just stated…
Kay, the man himself admitted his guilt by copping a plea of
m a n s l a u g h t e r.
No innocence here.
The first person to go down the stairs and die was not his first wife. She was a neighbor and friend. She had a will that left her daughters and her estate to Mr. Peterson. A large inheritance for which to raise her daughters should something happen to her. Which it did. The second woman to go down the stairs was his second wife. This second wife was just fine with Mr Peterson frolicking with the boys when the mood struck. I do not know of one woman, myself included, who would be ok with that little piece of information. And, I had a husband who frolicked! Women, normally, do not approve of their spouses (of approximately four years – or any years for that matter) being unfaithful with either sex. According to other articles Mrs. Peterson had an anxiety medication and one or two other mood-altering medications in her system, plus alcohol. Who, late at night, decides this is the time to go and “work” on their computer after ingesting this combination. Most likely it’s “be time.” This guy’s body language, with facial expressions of a child is beyond the reality of a mature man. And, the family is just perky beyond belief. No one ever mentions how they miss their loving mother. The one at the bottom of the stairs. I think he got by with two murders – for profit.
Only the guilty would require a lawyer
Naive…
Shelly, shame on you.
Are you for real? What an inane statement.
Shelley, you watch too much tv. Dealing with law enforcement without an attorney is probably the most moronic thing one can do.
So, if a loved one is murdered, you’re an idiot to speak with a police without an attorney? Even though you might have valuable information that could help them find the killer? Do ideas like that come easily to you? Very clever.
Attend to the original comment: if one might or could be regarded as a suspect, legal counsel is highly wise – the innocent are sometimes convicted. If merely providing information voluntarily (not mirandized), that is a different matter.
Those who effectively choose to represent themselves do indeed have a fool for a client… The comment the above was made in response to is breathtakingly foolish for the obvious fact that some are proven to be wrongly convicted of the worst crimes, including because of what they said – or were coerced into saying – to police that a competent lawyer would have prevented or advised against.
I believe after watching the series on Netflix that the defense attorney proved more than once that the prosecutor and the investigators tainted and misled information to the jurors. Abuse of power in my book.
I can not believe that Hardin (now a judge) was not part of the misrepresentation of facts. We know he chose Deavers and that he withheld evidence from the defense. We know that he hated Peterson for the negative articles Peterson wrote about him. I am very sad to think that someone of such low moral fiber is able to get a position as a judge.
I know, right!! That made me feel sick.
That’s what happens with DA’s when you win a big case. This is why he insisted that the blood stains be given to Deavers. Did anyone not see the reactions to the faces of the prosecutors when Deavers said he handed the some results to them and they acted as if what the fuck is he talking about. Also the videos that Deavers was recording to get the match he wanted?? Hell, the judge even said had there been a second trial the verdict would have come out differently without some of the evidence he would’ve thrown out. All DNA experts agreed that how Deavers came to his opinions were wrong they were flat out lies. What got me to believe he was innocent was first that the DA never gave the defense the report from Deavers which he said he hand delivered to the DA. Second the recreating of the blood splatter was a comic scene at best and last the missing blow toe. And as we saw that before Deavers testimony the jurors were locked at a hung jury 6-6 and or acquittal 8-4 I believe.
I agree with Elizabeth. I believe he is innocent and there is no substantial proof of guilt. He is innocent of how much of the case was tainted. The system is corrupt not just on this side of the house of legal but also on the family law section. It only serves those in the position to make quota or benefit from deceiving or manipulating the evidence, law, and situation to better their outcome. Instead of finding the truth. I am so done with all you that think you know all the answers just because you feel in your pinky toe it’s correct. Go to school and search for truth, not anything else.
I think it’s valid for people to have differing views on this case.
The facts do not look good:
He has had two women he is close with die by falling down stairs where he was the last person to be with the woman. That’s very odd.
He had potential to gain materially from the death of both women, and maybe to gain in other ways…too. That’s not good.
It seems likely his wife found pictures/correspondence on his computer that night and it led to an altercation (about affair/sexual activity outside the marriage). If a man or woman’s spouse had a tragic, weird violent death or disappearance and it is then discovered his/her partner was having an affair or living a secret life at the time, that is always a big red flag.
He ended up having a romantic relationship with the editor of the documentary that featured his side of the story from his perspective. That doesn’t make him a murderer, but it tells me he is extremely adept at charming/seducing people and the boundaries are very odd.
He has a track record of lying about important things in public to make himself look good.
This all points to guilt in my opinion.
I have no idea what the truth is b/c I wasn’t there, and neither was anyone else as far as we know.
But it sure doesn’t look good.
I agree, too big a coincidence.
Agreed!
I binged watched this yesterday, and agree 100%! Defense put out the better case. Prosecution goal was to taint that man’s image. Deaver’s cross sounded like bs, turns out he is bs! I was already disgusted with the prosecution’s argument, even more after his exposure. I say that in and of itself should have led to dismissal.
15 yrs, post plea, the judge himself admits there was prejudice then says, “I think I could’ve had a reasonable doubt.” Abuse of power is present here.
Michael Peterson has civil court Jefferson county courthouse in colorado June 23rd 2020 division h at 8 am
Why is he appearing in court when it’s all over?
Errr…she was his neighbour, NOT his first wife.
Liz Ratliff wasn’t his wife — she was his best friend’s wife.
Ye know what, he might have even murdered her husband as well.
He was killed in military service in an operation in Ghana while M.P was in Germany.
It was not his first wife. She’s alive. It was the family friend he murdered in similar fashion.
It wasn’t his “first” wife who died. It was a family friend…
I feel the same way about the son Mr. Walker. There was something strange about him.
The Netflix series is just so insulting to me. I agree with you 100%. These high profile cases always have the same ripe and wealthy old pathologists using their “sponges and food theories” for circumstantial evidence. It’s laughable outdated forensics at best. Same lawyers and prosecutors as well. It’s all so theatrical and choreographed. I admit I’ve seen some pretty great work done by some of them ie- Matt Murphy (first one that comes to mind) but it doesn’t change the fact that money buys and pays for a lot of justice and even more injustices. Michael Peterson is a guy I can “almost” empathize with. He’s likeable up front, has a softer gentler persona, although it’s easy to see his sensitive ego underneath of it all. When you look closely and take all into consideration including some of his history, well, call me a prejudiced forensics dummy, but I smell a rat, not an owl.
Why were twigs and owl feathers found in Kathleen’s hair?
Ah, don’t bring up facts, you’ll just confuse them.
It must be satisfying to know you know better than the jury. Were you in court throughout the proceedings?
The owl theory and feathers was not discussed in the trial because the pathologist did not see the feathers and the owl theory was not discussed at all.
Agreed that is why he said he was innocent because he is but covering for son, good dad.
Maybe Peterson ‘framed’ the owl – surely no less plausible an explanation than that some are foolish enough to buy the ‘owl’ theory…
This is something I keep thinking about too with this case.
No mention that Deaver and his blood testimony was all lies leading to his firing from the SBI .. found over 40 cases where he made up evidence or withheld evidence including this case … beyond a reasonable doubt! People never understand that phrase..
Deaver has ruined some lives withholding evidence. Why isn’t he in jail?
1. It’s not been shown his evidence affected trials’ outcomes to the disadvantage of defendants. If that were deemed a reasonable possibility there would be retrial. This isn’t to say that no conceivable harm was done – but you overstate the case that there was demonstrable harm.
2. That said, if he intended to pervert the course of justice (as opposed to merely being incompetent), he should be charged.
Truly amazing how people scream guilty. Michael Peterson was a victim as much as Kathleen. Elizabeth Ratliff was a close friend when they were living in Germany. Logic where sexual proclivities and knowing someone who died at the bottom of the stairs must lead to being guilty of murder do not make sense. Murdering for money does not make sense as Kathleen made good money and had excellent credentials to work anywhere. The owl theory to me makes the most sense. House large so would that be why Michael would not have heard her screaming if a raptor landed on her head ? Deep lacerations made her bleed to death in an hour. Where were the experts regarding bleeding to death from head wounds? She may not have screamed and been so stunned with an owl landing on her head. Feathers clutched in her hands and hair? That is the most compelling evidence yet. Too bad they didn’t discover the laceration pattern sooner instead of at very end of trial.
“Logic where sexual proclivities and knowing someone who died at the bottom of the stairs must lead to being guilty of murder do not make sense.” – the guilt is based on the evidence of the crime. The events in Germany are further evidence of precedent and his sexual proclivities are evidence of his marriage not being the idyllic one that he claimed in his defence.
“Murdering for money does not make sense as Kathleen made good money and had excellent credentials to work anywhere” – Michael Peterson and his sons were in serious financial difficulties and the life insurance was a means of resolving them, far more than Kathleen’s supposed earnings potential that was hers, not theirs.
“That is the most compelling evidence yet.” – it is an absurd and desperate attempt to deflect from his obvious guilt.
“… as Kathleen made good money and had excellent credentials to work anywhere.” Highly disputable – it’s claimed her stock had plummeted, they were living on credit, she was laying people off at work and may well’ve expected to lose her own job – and in any case not much good to MP if they divorced per her potential discovery of his gay affairs. She did, on the other hand, have an attractive life insurance policy.
Just a thought – if she had $2M in life insurance; would he really be living in a 2 br condo? No blood on the blow poker – no strangulation marks on her throat, if he had beat her head on the stairs/wall/doorframe she likely would have had brain contusions (especially if he hit her hard enough to split her scalp and cause that much blood) ….
Yes – ‘cos OF COURSE he can’t profit from crime, and his Alford plea counts as admission, so there’d be no insurance payout (to him, anyway). Did you think the insurer would pay regardless of whether he murdered her?
Very well said!
Nobody can be 100 % sure, neither can you know what his family thinks. All through this trial the prosecution manipulated the situation. This proved to be true.
Trial by media is pathetic and this is barred in Australia.
I believe Henry Lee. The guy was put on trial because he was bisexual.
They had no idea he was bisexual at the time of his arrest. It was the blood, dried, congealed and massive that led first responders and police to believe that her death was no accident. I watched Henry Lee’s testimony in the case which I did not find impressive or credible.
Taken at face value his Alford plea accepts there was sufficient evidence properly to convict – and had he not plead he would likely have been convicted a second time. Given this I fail to understand why certain observers press for innocence. His is simply NOT a case of likely innocence, even if there’s a modicum of doubt (which doesn’t amount to reasonable doubt).
I don’t think for a minute P’s sexuality per se convicted him: but the question of the wife’s discovery of his interest in/liaison with men, her plausible anger, his social status, and his dependence on her income – threatened – very plausibly constitutes motive. Motive doesn’t, of course equal act, but there seems little room to deny the existence of motive if the above factual strands are indeed facts.
I agree. The weapon may have been a golf club. I believe Kathleen took two steps up, was bonked on the head from behind, and bled to death after hours of agony. Much like Liz in 1985.
Wow, had no idea this nut job was out and about. I thought for sure he’d be behind bars for good.
What are the odds of having 2 dead wives at the bottom of a staircase? Are his kids so confident in his innocence that they let gram pa babysit?
As long as the kids don’t have life insurance policies with him as the beneficiary…
Right you are. Released with time served on an Alford plea because of a lying expert witness. A poor lower class convict would be serving life without parole for 2 murders!
He was never married to the girls’ mother. He adopted them. He and his first wife, Patricia, were married at the time. The deceased woman was his neighbor and after her husband died she listed the Petersons’ guardianship if she were to die.
I think I read in “Written in blood” that he didn’t adopt them because then he wouldn’t have been paid for looking after them. And he didn’t provide them with a secure home, they moved between various relatives and friends when he couldn’t cope with them, particularly Martha. very sad
The 1st woman was not his wife. I think it was a close friend.
What 2 dead wives? The first one wasn’t his wife — she was a neighbour.
His first wife is alive and well. Get educated before you make such stupid comments.
Great post with interesting info, as usual. Many thanks for your continued investigations!
Many thanks for reading!
Did you people watch the same documentary that I did? The state not only committed perjury but falsified evidence, hid other evidence? It was a crazy injustice!!!! I 100% believe Michael Peterson is innocent. I pray for peace for him and his family. Oh not to mention her sister was a crazed lunatic!
Amen. Thank you !
I’m thankful that criminal outcomes aren’t determined by documentaries – in particular those watching them thinking they know better than judge and jury…
Lying “expert witness” fired for holding and misleading evidence in many many cases also lied about his experience and background …. hmmm what were you saying about being there and knowing ???
Well, Ed, the response is simple. Regardless of blood-sampling evidence being insecure, the case against him was sufficient to meet the guilty threshold. Did the jury convict significantly because of that testimony? No – and other cases where a so-called expert witness has lied or been shown incompetent ONLY fall for retral if it’s viewed that their testimony may reasonably have made a difference to outcome, rendering it insecure. This is not the case here. Furthermore, forensic evidence is not required for a guilty verdict. Plenty of perps are convicted on circumstantial evidence alone; and that was persuasive in this case. The influence Deaver’s evidence had will be viewed varyingly, but the authorities did not consider that that evidence, taken in context of the totality, caused his conviction – the the verdict would reasonably have resulted anyway per other evidence.
In sum, contrary to your implication, discredited forensic evidence post hoc by no means necessarily undermines a guilty verdict but may cause it to be re-examined to determine if it could reasonably have disadvantaged the defendant, and if so, a retrial ensures. Furthermore, Peterson took an Alford plea – which at face value means that he accepts that there was sufficient evidence to convict notwithstanding his denial. If the defendant accepts that, perhaps we should…
The withholding of evidence by the prosecution, bad conduct of Deavers who lied about his expertise, falsified evidence, etc. caused his cases to be thrown out, some convictions overturned — the Judge Orlando Hudson ordered a new trial. He even admitted had he been on the jury, he could have found reasonable doubt. And, he admitted later he probably should have disallowed the bisexual element (there was no evidence Kathleen actually found the pictures and emails) and he would have disallowed any mention of the death of the friend in Germany. I don’t know for sure if Peterson killed his wife. It seems to be the best explanation. But the blood splatter experts demonstrated how she could have fallen and bled out. Peterson took an Alford plea because of all the misconduct from the prosecutors and “experts.” He wasn’t going to risk another unfair trial.
I agree completely … his trial was a total miss use of power!
I know Miss Use! She was in my grammar school spelling class. Too bad for Petersen the jury was full of good spellers.
… and good judges.
me too.
well deirdre you are 100% the state cooked the books to make the jury believe he was guilty. if the information that was used in court was proved at the time to be false, he would have been acquitted. whether he is guilty or not. there are doubts. but doubts mean he should have never been found guilty in the first place. you cannot send someone to prison for life unless one is certain he was guilty.
The legal threshold is not certitude.
Beyond a reasonable doubt is rather close to certain, maybe greater.
Karen,
I agree with you 100%! The trial infuriated me. The prosecution had no evidence. It’s awful what they did to that family! Michael Peterson looks broken. My prayers go out to all of them.
His former wife looks a lot more than broken…
There were no stairs in the first wife’s home! That’s a look of relief.
Indeed, he didn’t get a fair trial for the reasons you’ve mentioned, which proved how incapable and corrupt the prosecutors were. This still doesn’t mean that Peterson’s innocent. I certainly don’t think he is.
‘Michael Peterson looks broken.’
So does his wife…
He was offered a second trial and chose an Alford, so it’s invalid to suggest that regardless of the first matters were not corrected. The first largely DOESN’T MATTER. Indeed, it could be argued that it was the questionable nature of the first that elicited the Alford that enabled him to serve much less time than had he been found guilty either at a non-erroneous first trial or the second had it happened. For, formally, an Alford recognises that there was sufficient evidence to convict; therefore, taken at face value, he’s more likely than not to’ve been convicted at a second trial (entirely minus the controverted blood evidence).
Some commenters seem unable to see the wood for the trees… It’s literally reasonable to assume P’s guilt…
DNA should be conducted on Michael & his adopted daughter Margaret!! I think she is his biological daughter! MOTIVE
Yes!! My husband and I have been thinking that from the start! They look soo much alike! And that would be motive.
Motive for what??? Are you people serious??? She was Liz’s daughter. What does Kathleen’s death have to do with Liz’s daughter? (One of her daughters by the way) Makes no sense.
I thought the same re Margaret – I think there must have been more going on with him being the first on the ‘crime scene’ after the friend died. The similarities of both women dying at the bottom of the stairs should be red flag enough.
Given the fact that the scientists testimony was at the very least false… You lied about his own experience except era and it seems as though he placed the pieces of this mystery to look like Mike Peterson had done it.
Almost as if they tried to frame him by putting information in that Was not true and hiding true facts at the same time period it makes one feel as though Mike Peterson was innocent after all.
The Siena itself with all the blood I personally feel more than a fall down the stairs happened I can’t say who might have contributed to Kathleen’s end… But it seems for sure someone did something to Kathleen to cause her death.
The truth is I like Michael Peterson’s personality and history of being a good man raising the family all of his children loved him.
For real, no one is perfect… And Michael Peterson has paid over and over again for many years now that he was found guilty.
Wow I want to believe that Mike Peterson is not guilty — the evidence makes me shake my head and wonder what really the truth is. This will always be a mystery. I know I anticipated confession from either his son or him. My heart goes out to both sides of the family.
“The truth is I like Michael Peterson’s personality and history of being a good man raising the family all of his children loved him.” What’s that got to do with the price of fish?
1 You don’t know how his children feel about him – only what seems; not that it’s relevant anyway.
2 He was cheating on his wife with gay lovers. That’s not relevant to his guilt – but it is to your presentation of a ‘wholesome’ family man.
It ISN’T a mystery: he was found guilty and admitted that there was sufficient evidence to convict even if claiming innocence.
What an odd perspective yours is!
watching the staircase series i thought he could of been guilty. the police manufactured evidence against peterson and used the blow pipe throughout the trial as the murder weapon, when in fact the police had removed that pipe from the scene on the night of the “accident/murder” and replaced it some time later as if they had been trying to find it all along. the police were guilty of conspiracy and perjury, for no other reason than to get peterson found guilty. the law says if there is doubt you should not convict. and there are some elements of doubt. if he did it, he is lucky, if he is innocent, he is unlucky. no one will ever know what it’s like to be accused when in fact you are innocent. so i hope for his sake he was guilty. i was innocent of an alleged crime but was found guilty in the courtroom. sadly judges and jurors make mistakes and police conspiracy and perjury is common practice in far too many cases.
He’s highly likely to be guilty. We aren’t in a position to sit in judgement of the jury’s decision as we weren’t in court and didn’t see and hear what they did. We’re also likely to have less information than them, since what we ‘know’ is generally media-reported and subject to bias, interpretation and error. Therefore we have to have very good reason to suggest they got it wrong, and there’s no good reason to do so.
Extremely regrettably the innocent are sometimes convicted – sometimes with the malfeasance of the police and/or prosecutor, though many more who are guilty are likely acquitted (or never indicted in the first place) – not that that makes anything better for the innocent. What we can’t maintain is that wrongful conviction and/or malfeasance is common. We can, of course, only know it’s happened after the fact, and as a proportion of all convictions those shown to be wrongful, for whatever reason, are small. There are almost certainly more than we know of, but the nature of the situation is that that is speculation. We can only base claims of wrongfulness and/or misconduct on cases shown to have been such.
Who wouldn’t agree with you that Peterson’s lucky if (as) guilty? Particularly if this is the second murder. He wouldn’t be the first prominent, wealthy white person privileged under colour of law.
Studies estimate that in US between 2.3 and 5% of all prisoners are innocent:
https://web.archive.org/web/20141110182624/http://www.innocenceproject.org/Content/How_many_innocent_people_are_there_in_prison.php
I imagine that the proportion wrongly convicted per misconduct is a small fraction of this number. While not believing it’s an undue problem, I’ve been appalled at the small punishment of those DAs who HAVE sought to pervert justice, who I think should themselves be imprisoned for lengthy sentences given the dreadful potential of their action.
Because of some laws regarding some charges in the uk…it’s estimated that 17% are innocent but found guilty.
Your source(s), please? Shouldn’t we stick to the US – the country you were referring to?
Per UK, I cite these figures for convenience (the ones I found first, before England or whole-of-UK):
Wrongful convictions in Northern Ireland:
£9m in compensation since 2010;
84 people wrongfully convicted of crimes between 2007 and 2017;
30% were sexual crimes;
90% of those wrongfully convicted were men;
31 cases led to a re-trial;
10 defendants were aged 16-20 when their conviction was quashed.
Source: NI Courts and Tribunals Service, NI Department of Justice
—
If your point is that wrongful conviction is ‘common’ and/or that prosecutorial misconduct is, since you mention UK, these figures don’t support your contention. In a population of 1.9 million, 84 cases over 10 years is by no definition common, worrying etc
Of course there will be more – but we’ve no basis to suppose there are many more, which can only be speculation. Even if there were triple the above number in reality, that would be 25 cases on average each year (in this small country): hardly a figure reflecting a failed system!
we shall wait and see what happens to the police who spent over £2,500.000 trying to get evidence against lord britain, harvey proctor, lord bramall and others. this bill has already risen due to the pay-outs to the accused. (the matter is being investigated) i predict that no one will be brought to account over the 43 failures in judge henriques report….. ass
Vic: I agree – but the difference in the case(s) you cite here and those of this thread is that no convictions occurred – hence ‘exoneration’ is that of reputation only. There’s a big difference!
yes marcus i see your point. since my wrongful conviction i do try to give those that could be innocent the benefit of the doubt. it looks like mr peterson is guilty but someone wins the lottery each week at odds of 14,000,000 to one. people seem to be convicted when the guilty evidence slightly outweighs the innocent evidence. my case was an historical sexual offence where you are not allowed to tell the jury my accuser has made 15 “to my knowledge” previous complaints to the police involving different people. to get me found guilty the police investigator committed perjury, perverted the course of justice and failed to disclose evidence that would of acquitted me. i will be acquitted eventually, meanwhile i feel angry and let down by a depleted justice system. nothing will happen to the police investigator in my case because when they tell lies the people who make enquiries are only interested in saying theres no case to answer, just as in the operation midland. the book the secret barister is something everyone involved in fighting for wrongs to be put right should read. at times the justice system in the U.S is corrupt and unfair but this country is just as bad. anyone who tells lies purely to get someone convicted should go to prison in this country or the U.S
Vic: I’m very sorry indeed if you were wrongly convicted – and the nature of the conviction is one that could make life difficult for you.
Conviction for alleged sexual offences (involving adults) is particularly susceptible to wrongful outcome as such trials are typically relatively highly predicated on whom to believe and circumstantial evidence. For this reason most fail: a conviction is unforthcoming. But in your case it was because they wrongly believed the accuser. Evidence of prior failed allegations against others should be considered under appeal per the issue of vexatious litigiousness (sometime related to mental ill-health).
Good luck in getting you name cleared. It must be very distressing being falsely accused of a sex crime. How does one prove it didn’t happen?
i won my appeal in july 2016 but was re-convicted in feb 2017 for the same charges.
after the prosecution wanted a retrial. my barister told me i was not allowed to mention the first trial, and all the goalposts were moved to prevent justice in the re-trial. you would not believe the conspiracies that took place between the two trials. the police allowed the accuser to change her fabrications in the knowledge that she was telling lies. then swept the accusers two sisters evidence under the carpet preventing my defence from knowing the real truth.
I believe in his innocence due to no physical murder weapon, no times of death, no due diligence for crime scene etiquette, and just for the state fishing off of opinions…how do you beat someone to death in the same spot and not crack the skull??? It’s ridiculous…people in these comments are looking at the person and making claims…people can be really mean and horrible and not kill…why was there no previous abuse to the kids or in his childhood..where was the money he was getting…going into the lawyers for sure…we have to be serious about how we are locking people up…look at facts!!
In entering an Alford plea, Peterson admitted that the evidence presented by the prosecution would be likely to persuade a judge or jury to find him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt – which robustly counters your view, as you seem to think there’s little or no evidence of guilt. Furthermore, he was previously convicted, getting a second trial due to matters that likely unaffected the first trial’s outcome.
Your view needs revision…
DNA Michael & adopted daughter Margaret???
Umm Marcus, are you a lawyer or a professional criminal? The only reason a state offers an Alford plea is to get themselves off the hook for a crooked trial. It shields them from being sued by people wrongfully imprisoned. Are you so blind by your own “greatness” that fact escapes you? There is no state anywhere that would offer and accept an Alford plea if the conviction trial was “above the board.” As far as her death?……the area is known for rogue owls. They have signs on the road that indicate it! While I agree the first time I heard that I laughed. But she had microscopic feathers entangled in her hair. Owls have feathers that go down to their talons. The wounds on the back of her head were measured to be the same length and width. They resemble a “pitchfork” or bird TALON pattern. What person can get enraged, pick up an instrument, beat someone in the back of the head, and inflict the same size wounds in 3 different places on the head. All that and not crack the skull? If he was going to kill her why not do it in a less messy fashion? There was blood all over the place. What guilty person would tell the cops she fell down the steps and that bloodbath was the result of just a fall?!
Marcus….your view needs revision.
“The only reason a state offers an Alford plea is to get themselves off the hook for a crooked trial.”
No, it’s in cases where the defendant admits that the evidence presented by the prosecution would be likely to persuade a judge or jury to find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt but allows the defendant to avoid a possible worse sentence were they to lose the case against them at trial.
“the area is known for rogue owls”
An exagerration.
” What guilty person would tell the cops she fell down the steps and that bloodbath was the result of just a fall?!”
Michael Peterson.
“The only reason a state offers an Alford plea is to get themselves off the hook for a crooked trial.”
Rubbish.
As for the remainder of your opinion, tell it to the judge and jury. They were unimpressed with this claim.
“If he was going to kill her why not do it in a less messy fashion?” Sudden rage? At having been caught by her cheating with a man? There’s no necessary claim that this was premeditated. But plenty of murders – partic the spontaneous ones – are messy.
“What guilty person would tell the cops she fell down the steps and that bloodbath was the result of just a fall?!”
What else COULD he say after a spontaneous attack? You presume this was planned, and planned well. Don’t!
Your analysis is naive.
That overbearing self centered bastard was guilty as sin. I just finished watching The Staircase. Luckily, he had money to hire the best attorneys. I can see why they got along so well; he and his attorney’s were all self centered, arrogant POS. Two women, one just a friend and the other his wife, both died falling from the top of the staircase. No coincidence. That trial was so similar to O.J’s; both liars, best attorney’s money can buy. It’s so easy for the rich to get found not guilty. This guy was a sick bastard. He should have been found guilty. Let’s see if his next female companion falls down the stairs.
Michelle: Peterson was *not* acquitted; far from it. But he did get away relatively lightly, as assuming second-degree murder (he intended to kill but it wasn’t premeditated) he would’ve got life, albeit possibly with parole after c 25 years.
I agree with you about his guilt; but being rich (and well-known) can presumably work against you, if you become notorious, as I’d say he did (not that I think this affected the verdict: he is guilty). Sadly – and I think particularly in the US – one can buy an acquittal to some extent (who knows to what extent?) Yes, had OJ had poorer-quality lawyers it seems reasonable to assume he’d have been convicted (yet that didn’t buy him acquittal in the civil case, perhaps ‘cos the evidentiary standard is lower).
At the other end of the scale, the poorest – a larger proportion of black people than white – with public defenders are disadvantaged (which is not to say that some public defenders aren’t excellent and do it not for money but justice).
I don’t know what, if any, solution exists to this disparity of legal quality, given that assuming it exists it would seem impossible to measure given that no two cases are the same. What’s undeniable is that some lawyers are better than others at defending (and prosecuting). Do the best ones (defined as those who succeed in their cases most – a questionable criterion) *tend* to occupy private practice and charge exclusively highly? I expect so!
The the state thought they could convict on the second trial, why would they offer an Alford plea and allow a first degree murderer to go free after serving only 8+ years? A grieving family and premeditated murder, the state has a duty to put the guilty man in jail for life. Since the state wouldn’t be able to get away prejudicing the jury with tales of gay sex and dead friend in Germany or offer up junk science by a quack wanna-be blood spatter expert. The DA wouldn’t get away with withholding evidence, or misleading the jury to believe the murder weapon was the “mysteriously missing blowpoke,” which the police found and photographed early on and knew there was no blood or prints on it. So the state wouldn’t be able to lie and stack the deck. It would have to be a fair trial. I don’t know if Peterson is guilty, but I would take any plea before I would roll the dice against crooked prosecutors. BTW: one of the asst da’s was Mike Nifong, who later prosecuted the Duke lascross case and withheld evidence and had dna results altered. He was disbarred but only served one day in jail.
An owl? Seriously? If an owl had attacked her there would be feathers all over that bloody staircase.
No amount of fishy officials/expert witnesses can change the actual physical and blood evidence. If Petersen didn’t do it there is only one plausible explanation. She fell down the stairs with a stick of dynamite attached to her head.
Now that alone was worth the price of admission!
Isn’t the claim that there was the odd feather (planted)? Regardless, it’s a truly desperate explanation – and convenient it occurred at the time it’s claimed Peterson’s ‘ex-curricular’ interest was discovered on his pc by the wife. We can easily imagine how this caused the traumatic confrontation that ended as is claimed. Either that or P’s extremely unlucky in the confluence of circumstances…
Thank you Christine! You put into words exactly what I was thinking.
Does it not matter that this man is in his 70’s? Maybe he wants to live the rest of what’s left in some sort of peace, without the drama of court room. He has admitted his innocence since those cops started following him around.
Getting off on a technically, being found not guilty by a jury or judge, does not mean or mitigate the fact that one committed the crime. Rich or poor that happens.
I just can’t believe that there was never a re-enactment of the staircase with a dummy the same height and weight as Kathleen to do multiple falls with different scenarios to actually see what injuries would actually occur to a human head. In fact, that was the first thing I thought of and would have conducted and that type of situation. The beating of a sponge with a blow poke was absolutely ridiculous and I would have broke out laughing if I was in the courtroom just as I did while watching the documentary. Total and utter incompetent idiots!
I agree. It may have been considered an invalid exercise in this case for some reason – but in another FF episode of a man accused (and found guilty) of bludgeoning his wife over the head, killing her, a dummy reconstruction of the event was used to show that the head injuries were consistent with a trip and fall down the basement stairs (where she was found) – resulting in overturned conviction. Could something similar have been done in Peterson’s case (not that I think he’s innocent!)
I’ll try to find the ep…
Thank you for pointing this out! I was also wondering why they didn’t use a dummy.
DNA TEST MICHAEL & ADOPTED DAUGHTER MARGARET!! WILL SHOW HE IS HER BIOLOGICAL FATHER !
What on earth would that prove?
It would prove he is a liar regarding his involvement w/ another woman that was close to him that also died falling down stairs. It would prove he was having a sexual relationship with her, and that she ended up dead at the bottom of a staircase.
(He was likely having an affair with Liz. Once again, an altercation likely occurred…as often does with love affairs that are secret, and it ended up with Liz “falling down the stairs” maybe because she was going to come forward with the truth about it to his wife.)
I remember this case very well. Any recent words from David Rudolf, by any chance?
No, but I’m pretty sure we haven’t heard the last from him.
In ” Behind the Staircase,” MP MAKES An interesting and insightful remark. He says, “Karma is a bitch!” Now if MP is an innocent man, why on earth would he say this? Of all the research I have taken on with respect to Cathleen’s homicide, MP is clearly a PYSCHOPATH! His motives are forthrightly clear, money, money, money. His emergency call on Dec 19 do not persuade, nor are they genuine. He had blood splatter on his shorts, both inside and outside. There was clearly blood splatter from the beating on the walls and on the risers of the stairs. The position of CP’s body shows that it was staged! MP’s timeline of 12-18,19 do not line up. Furthermore, Cathleen and MP were not out by the pool that evening because there was never any pool furniture at all! When Candace Zamperini was in MP’s study shortly after the homicide and MP asked her to write the obituary, Candace looked out the rear window towards the pool. Guess what, ABSOLUTELY NO POOL FURNITURE! They were deeply in debt and Todd resented Cathleen not bailing him out. Todd knows a lot more than he will admit. MP’s murder 16 years earlier is clear evidence that he had the capacity to kill. The Durham police were incompetent horribly. WHY WASN’T CATHLEEN’S BODY TEMPERATURE TAKEN AT THE SCENE TO ESTIMATE THE APPROXIMATE TIME OF DEATH? I BELIEVE CP’S DEATH OCCURED BETWEEN 11:30 AND 12:30 am on 12-19-2001.
The attempted excuse that an owl did it shows what kind of lies occurred. Owls do not attack, unless provoked. They go after small prey they can carry off. An adult human? That’s highly unlikely. The allegation it got stuck in her hair is ridiculous. This shows the length of deception he went to for an excuse to put the blame on something else, and when that didn’t “fly” the police were next. It’s everything and everyone else. I would also think they would have found blood trails and in trees where the owl flew.
DNA TEST WILL SOLVE THIS CASE, MICHAEL AND ADOPTED DAUGHTER MARGARET ARE FATHER AND DAUGHTER??
I just recently watched the documentary and wow, what a jolly happy guy he is for someone being charged with murdering his wife! He acted way too calm and happy. And to know TWO people that died falling down the stairs?? Really?? Plus with the things he wrote in some of his books, yeah…he’s guilty. I’m not buying his innocence for a second.
Psychopathy – detachment / failure to behave appropriately – is consistent with his crime and gay double-life…
Bingo! Narcissistic in the extreme.
DNA TEST MICHAEL & ADOPERTED DAUGHTER MARGRET will solve this CASE!!
What stands out the most to me is the weapon used! A BLOW PIPE. I know what a Blow Pipe is and it’s a light weight hollow metal tube that it hurts to be hit by one and stings! The kind of weapon a sissy would use! That poor woman!
Yeah, it doesn’t leave 5″ jagged lacerations without bending or breaking. That forensic guy got into so much trouble not because he was a total hack, but he had no idea how she suffered the head wounds she had, but leave no spatter. If Dr. Lee comes into your case and says you’re wrong, just give up. I’ll take his opinion like the words of a book, it’s black and white.
Amen. Lee was the true expert. The prosecutor wanted the jury to believe the blow poke was the murder weapon, but never conducted a test to see if a how a thin metal “curtain rod” could actually kill someone. I would have liked to see a demonstration. Given Deavers was a fraud and a liar, my guess is they didn’t plenty of tests and proved it couldn’t cause similar damage. Then they destroyed all video and other evidence of the tests.
Martha looks nothing like her sister Margaret ? However Margaret is spitting image of Michael??? DNA test will solve this case!!
Lot of killers by the past have been proven to be complete narcissist as well as sociopath, able to manipulate people and especially their closed ones. It is no surprise to me that most of the kids, who were totally under his control their whole life, couldn’t believe one second he did it. I mean there are enough cases with more proofs where the relatives have the exact same speech “never, the person I know would have never done that” etc etc… Guess what, this is the whole point! However from an outside point of view I personally thought it was obvious that Peterson never seem sincere or even touched when he talked about most things and especially the actual night where Kathleen died.
In my opinon, a murderer who asked for a movie to be made to give him reason, unfortunately it back fired and the whole world sees him as the murderer that he is. He has however managed to hide what actually happened that night (weapon etc…), but it didn’t matter. Flawed justice however
I agree – but I’d add that we don’t know WHAT his children think. Just because they claim or appear to support him doesn’t mean they believe him innocent. They may think him guilty but that enough damage has been done to the family without public division over this, etc. Or they may have doubt but give him the benefit.
Ultimately, what they think is irrelevant to us but probably not to him…
DNA TEST WILL SOLVE THIS CASE! MARGARET IS MICHAEL BIOLOGICAL DAUGHTER!!
In WHAT universe would that prove ANYTHING?
Let’s pretend for one second that she is his biological daughter. And?
That may provide motive for the killing of one or both women, but having a motive isn’t the same as proof you did it.
The prosecution did a DNA test during the trial and they are not related. He is not her father.
I don’t understand how they could retry the case when so much was done to the evidence. There was so much undisclosed evidence and information that it should have been thrown out. How could the DA show his/her face after all of that foul play? Could they have sued the county? Very interesting case IMO.
For the sake of justice it’s right that he was re-tried… and he accepted per Alford Plea that there was sufficient to convict (that itself indicates the likely soundness of re-trial), which is almost certainly what a jury would’ve thought had he not taken the plea.
For an almost-certain murderer (certainty not being required for conviction), Peterson is fortunate, not unfortunate that he got some time rather than none…
Got through one episode of The Staircase with my father, a former crime reporter. I have also covered court trials in Australia. From the outset: Too much blood at the scene for an accident; and the head lacerations were nothing like a fall down a set of stairs. The defence team were going to an awful lot of effort to try to concoct a scenario that would fit Peterson’s innocence, but it all sounded so hokey. Usually the first, and simplest, explanation is correct. Re the owl: Would Peterson not have heard the kerfuffle from the pool if she was trying to get an owl off her that was causing those kinds of lacerations? Also another woman from whom he would benefit financially died in similar circumstances. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it’s a duck.
Occam’s razor indeed: posit no further than you need to explain the evidence… Both the quantity of blood and her injuries almost certainly exclude accident – and Peterson must be laughing about those who buy the owl malarkey. I’ve asked this before: if not accidental, which is the MORE likely: he did it (esp given the circumstantial evidence) or the owl did? That SHOULD be QED…
But maybe it’s just possible that a bisexual owl’s just been found out seeing a hot male owl on the side by Mrs Owl and was so upset at the fallout he flew into the Peterson’s house accidentally after a few beers, got stuck in Mrs P’s hair in a drunken haze… and the rest’s history. PULEEEASE!
GUILTY
GUILTY
GUILTY
GUILTY
You forgot to mention that Duane Deaver, the sbi agent, tampered with evidence on multiple cases and that is the reason his case went back to court.
I agree that he was horrible. However, he would never have had the opportunity to lie absent Hardin putting him on the stand.
No winners however, Deaver is a disgrace so, why not run a re-trial test by giving all new evidence and keeping out any and all prejudicial evidence (as ultimately agreed by judge in this case saying, he would have changed some things if he had to do it all again) and then see if he would have been found guilty? As to Candace (Kathleen’s sister), if Kathleen could speak from the grave, what would she tell us? I believe she would have said Michael has flaws but murdering her was definitely not one of them. Sadly we will never hear her voice again as she was characterized by all as a beautiful human being (except for some Nortel employees). RIP KP and peace upon ALL of you family.
Why on earth would P want another trial? His Alford plea precisely means that he/his defence accepts there was enough evidence to convict for murder. Unless there is new, excuplatory, evidence he’d be mad not to accept that the outcome he got was the best he could’ve hoped for (as a murderer).
He very likely knows he was extremely fortunate relative to the LWOP he could be serving.
What I hope everyone takes of this is that Hardin should never be a judge. Hardin has profited from his abuse of they system. He hid evidence (e.g photograph of blow pipe, lack of DNA tests), misrepresented facts (blow pipe theory when he KNEW where the pipe was) and was bound and determined to get a conviction (even if it meant having no ethics). I hope and pray that North Carolina realizes what a horrific choice he would be in the next election for judge.
I find it baffling every time I hear of why there was no DNA testing from the prosecution’s side. Well what about the defence team taking the time to do the same, if it meant in any way to profit MP. They defence didn’t ask for DNA testing, because they may not have liked what the results may have shown.
Why do we keep hearing about Deaver telling lies ??? In his opinion he is stating what he believes to be right. That’s not to say he’s correct, it’s his opinion. Not all very well scientists have the same opinion in their findings of valuable research. Having an opinion does not mean you are lying. Remember, the prosecution never did say that the blow pipe WAS the weapon, it was just suggested as the murder weapon. The role of the prosecution is to portray MP as having committed a murder and I believed that did the best they could. The defence does the best they can in professing his innocence. I believe whole heartedly that the jury got it right the first time and he is as guilty as hell. I believe from certain scenes from the documentary, that Martha struggled at certain times to whether she believed him to be innocent, especially with the possibility of having murdered her real mother. Margaret is just something else altogether.
Deaver lied on the stand about his experience. He claimed to be an expert but conducted tests in a manner that was ridiculed by experts — staging a blood spatter test to get the result he wanted. Jurors relied on his false and non-expert opinions. The prosecution withheld evidence and knowingly mislead the jury. You may think the jury got it right. Judge Orlando Hudson said he could have found reasonable doubt.
How on earth could you think he was guilty? Certainly not for Ratliff. German police are far better than ours said she died of a hemmorage and then decades later after exhuming her body a shady lady says it wasn’t? Please. Add in Deaver. Even the judge says he was guilty. Poor Candice is no longer in the spotlight, I love it.
MP’s main mistake was diagnosing the cause of Kathleen’s death instead of simply reporting it. If I found anyone in that situation I would immediately assume that there was an assailant in the house, look to defend myself, check the security of the building, call the police and report what I saw and that there may be an intruder, as well as seeking to assist the victim. MP was constantly fixated on attributing the cause to a fall down the stairs, evidence of a guilty man wishing to explain the situation rather than contain and deal with it. Everything about him is false: his theatrical personality type instead of simply being natural, his false war stories, his private gay liaisons, his pretence of being a successful author, his whole life has been an act. And Margaret sure looks like him, enough to suspect that there are plenty more secrets in his life.
Why when he came in and looked at her his first thought was she had fallen Down the stairs if you saw someone in that state your first thought would be she had been attacked
In the apparent absence of an intruder/weapon people would indeed think the person had fallen badly and hit their head. Only on closer inspection might it seem like they were struck.
Nonsense. The scene is completely incompatible with a fall down the stairs. The blood is evidence of attack, no matter the apparent absence of a weapon. Who concludes that a person has been, say, shot in the head only if there is a gun lying around rather than a bullet hole in the head?
I am addressing the previous poster’s remark: ‘why was his FIRST THOUGHT’… At first blush an accident would, to me, naturally be assumed, only refuted on perusal. Had she fainted, say, at the top of the stairs and hit her head as she fell (possibly a number of times), either coming down or hitting the bottom, that could conceivably cause splatter on walls.
And your word ‘conclude’ refutes your premise: we are NOT discussing conclusion but first appearance.
I think the view and action of the police at the time correctly classified it as a murder scene, on first appearance, and conclusion. They didn’t need a murder weapon to deduce that – it was obvious. No bruising, trauma or broken bones anywhere on her legs or knees which would be impossible for a fall down the stairs. All injuries confined to the upper body and huge blood loss consistent with an attack localised at the bottom of the stairs, not due to a fall down the stairs.
But we’re not talking about the police! “Why when he came in and looked at her his first thought was she had fallen Down the stairs.” I was clearly addressing THAT point, to which you replied ‘nonsense’. Now you cite police’s perspective. Of course police’s perspective could be (and was) different. Attention to, and consistency of, argument, please!
As an aside, it would appear possible, if unlikely, that the only but serious (and sometimes fatal) injury from a stair fall is head – particularly if propelled by a push, such as to avoid the ‘bump, bump’ on the way down. I’d avoid the extreme ‘impossible’, at least until a literature review informs that all cases of serious or fatal head injury per stair fall resulted in other injury. (I don’t argue it in this case, but there’s plenty of online info about such falls causing fatal brain injury and negligible other injury, inc propulsion caused by children playing and not intending injury).
Because to be objective we have to look at all perspectives to arrive at the truth. The question you ask is rhetorical because that isn’t what he did. He didn’t find her and thought she had fallen down the stairs. He had murdered her. That’s why the notion that she fell down the stairs doesn’t make any sense. Why the police immediately disbelieved it. Why the blood spatter and shoe print evidence is inconsistent with it. Why the uncooperative behaviour of him and his son on the arrival of the police doesn’t make sense. Why him pre-occupied with deleting emails on his PC while the police were around is baffling if he had just found his wife dead. Why the blood was so dry if the event had been so recent according to him. Nothing adds up if you believe that she fell down the stairs which is “Why when he came in and looked at her his first thought was she had fallen down the stairs” has no credible answer – because she didn’t.
But I didn’t ask the question; the poster I was replying to did! The question ISN’T rhetorical from the defence’s perspective, only assuming guilt (which I do and you do – but it’s beside the point). I disagree with the poster’s opinion, not the question, which could well’ve been asked in court (‘You say you discovered your wife at the bottom of the stairs. Did you think she had fallen or been attacked?)
I watched the documentary recently and thought, could she have found out the same night and he pushed her down the stairs. Then she tried to get up but he stood over her and tried to cause further injury. The blood splatter on his trousers doesn’t make sense for a man who found his wife dead at the bottom of the staircase… and what’s with his coming off the phone to the police? Wouldn’t you stay on the telephone? Maybe try and check for a pulse..definitely guilty. For a writer he certainly knows how to manipulate…
For the sake of people who were/are close to her/him I hope the truth will come out one day.
Though Michael is probably egotistic, having creative traits can lead to appearing as being on the verge of schizophrenia. When writing fiction, one tends to get into character. Why no mention of him not hearing calls for help when at the during trial? Deaver was clearly bent (no pun) and unreliable. The photo guy was clearly upset and stuck for reply when saying the blood splatter type stains were glitches. How in the name of whoever can anyone be honestly convicted on real evidence. If Michael was younger and fit, I am sure he would have fought on. If the two deaths were similar and a guilty of murder verdict was declared due to the similarity, then an accidental fall can equally be declared as being factual. Deaver did it me when first seeing his episode. Then looking at his other ‘expert’ evidence, on other cases, it gives reasonable doubt that Michael was guilty. Verdict: doubt
The second trial was offered to resolve the question – something naysayers seem to forget- and you know what P’s response was. His own verdict, if you like, was that there was sufficient evidence to convict, notwithstanding his denial (Alford plea). And this following the discrediting of the prosecution witness you cite, potentially creating a favourable climate for the second trial.
The strongest basis for acquittal – and one’s expectation of such – is innocence. The reasonable inference from the plea is that P lacked confidence that he’d be found not guilty… because he was guilty. The Alford IS a guilty plea and at face value closes matters. He might as well have said: ‘I plead guilty but claim innocence, accepting that there is a preponderance of evidence against me.’ In this circumstance it makes little sense for others to contradict this!
I have watched this documentary 5 times now. Just wanted to watch all the nuisances, etc. This Netflix piece was produced/directed on Michael’s assumption of innocence. I have several observations. None of them are based on science, evidence, or any professional expert opinion. I think there are many coincidences and behaviors that are interesting to me.
1. Watch his eyes & facial expressions. You can see his anger & frustration in his eyes at points where a conversation or a decision is not going his way. It’s subtle, he holds it back. It can be observed with his attorney on many occasions & in court. It’s that underlying anger that just sneaks through. I think his anger has shown through in his past.
2. He is an egomaniac & narcissistic. He and his brother can make a better argument than the defense team they hired. His kids have grown up in this environment all their lives. It is “hero” worship for them. And I think he has created an environment where all of his stories, thoughts, experiences, etc. are so prolific for the family. I imagine they “huddle” around him to hear what he will say next. This is no offense to his children. And why do we want to hear his favorite music selections during this documentary? And he says “ego and selfishness goes away with age.” Not his.
3. Control freak-Michael wants control. Again, with his law firm. Even the scene when they were discussing Maragret/Martha’ mother’s glassware items. Dad had to mention that he was with their mother on several occasions at the seconds store.
4. I think the kids were too over the top expressing how great the marriage was. They had no disagreements, arguments, etc. And if there was one, they would have known. They were young at the time of the interview. They had not been in marriages or any relationships themselves. I don’t think they understood that every marital issue is not an open discussion with the children at the dinner table.
5. Infidelity-it was stated he wasn’t faithful to his first wife (having relations with women & men). Then only male relations with Kathleen during their marriage. Yet, wants to state what a fairytale & great marriage they had. I don’t think Kathleen would call it a loving relationship when her husband has to find sexual pleasure elsewhere.
Is he guilty or innocent? I have my opinion. But, I wasn’t in court, don’t have the transcripts. I have watched the series, read articles, plus reading opinions from above.
Parts of the film were in bad taste when this was about showing your innocence. Too many bad jokes and making light of your coming court case.
I am anxious to do more research….
What if the owls did attack but not kill her? And what about the killing of his first wife in Germany?
The one thing I still can’t figure out-who and why was everything being filmed from the time he found Kathleen and the 9-1-1 call. Someone is filming everything. Why? Maybe he brought a camcorder out to the pool and was bringing it back in when he found her and turned it on. IDK. Everything was too weird and unexplained. But, I do believe he was innocent if for no other reason, reasonable doubt. The jurors must have had access to some evidence unavailable to the viewers of the Netflix movie, The Staircase. Sad, exposé of how corrupt some government workers get when they get just a taste of power. The government, with unlimited resources and oodles of power-hungry employees, can be corrupt. The average person doesn’t stand a chance. You want to believe in the justice system, but look at the climate we live in today. If the top at the FBI and CIA are corrupt, who isn’t?
This is like a mad house haha! I watched the netflix documentary, like I’m guessing most people did, and from the way it was presented I thought there is no question that there was reasonable doubt. Even during the first trial before we knew about the tampering and falsifications, the prosecution was extremely threadbare. The fact that in so many tens of thousands of cases of death by beating in that area (I forget the parameters), there was not one recorded case where skull fracture had not occured was the cementing factor for me. Outliers like that just don’t happen. If I’d been in the jury I would not have been happy declaring him guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Kathleen was drunk (2 bottles between the couple is a lot, in my book), falling down stairs kills people all the time. To all the people saying that it was a bloodbath that could not have been caused without a weapon – how are you so sure? I’ve seen skin split open on a flat surface before.
The judge, interviewed at the end of the series, says he thought that the jury could have found reasonable doubt. To be honest, I didn’t see how it was possible to convict a man on such circumstantial evidence, with so much in favour of his innocence. Reading these comments I find it more believable, as a lot of people are determined that they know more than what the facts show beyond doubt.
To the crazy person who keeps demanding a totally unwarranted DNA test on Margaret Peterson – just stop. If anything, I thought Peterson’s two sons looked more like the Ratliff father from his photo! Either way, it is nobody’s business, as the public is not entitled to any info that does not affect the case. Which it does not.
I agree wholeheartedly…just watched & believe she would have had a broken neck, amongst others. His comment that Kathleen was “comfortable” w/his bisexuality…no way, what a lie!
Just saying – he was at his adopted daughter’s birth. How long did he know Elizabeth Ratcliffe before she died? The 2 girls look VERY like him. Anyone done a DNA? Would give him motive in Germany . . .
I have seen the Netflix documentary and I believe that Michael Peterson should be in jail and he is guilty of the murder of the 2 women who died. This is my scenatio of the case. A person who has blood alcohol level .7 is already drowsy and she could not have gotten up the stairs and fall down… she might have had a fight with Michael Peterson while they were sitting near the pool after knowing about his escapades online and had a fierce fight with Michael and drank… while climbing the stairs Michael attacked with the blow poke however she still was alive after how many blows so he banged her on the door jamb and thus she died. I hope this case can be re opened again and that justice be done on the women who were victims of this man. Michael Peterson is truly a master in staging murder drama on the staircase.
Watching this ep now, Peterson says post allegation, ‘Kathleen was my life…’ If I were the prosecution I’d be bound to point out that this is a little hard to square with his established use of male prostitute and a local lacrosse player… If that’s what deep devotion is (a reasonable proxy of his claim), what would hatred be?
Plainly she was not ‘my life’ and had not been so for some time…
The guy definitely didn’t always think of her first.
Unless FF’s evidence presentation’s been superseded it seems significant that the friend who died many years previous to Kathleen (Liz) from ‘a stair fall’ and was disinterred for examination had the very same head injuries as Kathleen – rogue injuries claimed to be by ‘the owl’. Did the homicidal owl emigrate from Germany to the US and live long enough to strike again? It must’ve been personal…
If one can accept that the two women he was due to inherit from – one a close friend (he minded Liz’s children), the other his wife – could both have fatal ‘stair falls’ coincidentally, is it remotely plausible that their rogue head injuries would be almost identical? On the other hand, the ‘if it worked once it’ll work again’ principle is alive and well in the homicidal community and presented several times in FF eps.
Please advise if I’ve missed something (FF’s identical injuries claim being dismissed, etc).
Interestingly wikipedia (hardly a source of unalloyed truth and fact but not obviously biased) states this:
‘Kathleen’s daughter, Caitlin, and Kathleen’s sister, Candace Zamperini, both initially proclaimed Michael’s innocence and publicly supported him alongside his children, but Zamperini reconsidered after learning of Peterson’s bisexuality, as did Caitlin after reading her mother’s autopsy report. Both subsequently broke off from the rest of the family.’
and this:
‘The defense argued that Kathleen accepted Michael’s bisexuality and that the marriage was very happy, a position supported by Michael and Kathleen’s children and other friends and associates.’
So the latter claim is either poorly constructed, because ambiguous, or the total article is contradictory on this point (which is careless). Which is it? The whole immediate family said they believed him or the aforementioned didn’t. It seems like the latter (of mine).
Now, if some of the family – who would presumably be motivated to give him the benefit of the doubt or, as is common in families, not even entertain the possibility of guilt even when staring them in the face – think he’s guilty, that for me ought to be significant (if hardly decisive) for those here so sure of his innocence. That surety is in any case misplaced, being as it is based upon the inability of some to see the wood for the trees: to see past the ‘Deaver’ sideshow and consider the quantum of evidence.
It cannot be plausibly maintained that P is innocent, only that guilt was not demonstrated to the highest degree, yet sufficient to meet the threshold. Far from those who consider his conviction unsound, he was fortunate to be convicted of manslaughter AND ON HIS/HIS LAWYERS’ OWN RECKONING WOULD LIKELY HAVE BEEN CONVICTED OF MURDER AT THE SECOND TRIAL HAD HE NOT TAKEN THE ALFORD. It doesn’t matter a jot that the reader thinks the evidence against was insufficient; the question they should ask themselves is obvious: why did P/lawyers’ take the Alford unless they too thought that the jury would likely find him guilty??? If the evidence against him was a scant and ‘laughable’ as some here would have it, it would have been senseless – even illogical – to agree to a manslaughter conviction, having denied any part in the death (premeditated or not).
The conclusion is that in his own estimation the evidence against him was sufficient to render guilt of murder too likely an outcome to risk (ie, significant). Following the logic, if too likely that’s ‘cos there was quite a bit… Does it make him unquestionably guilty of murder? No. Does it make it likely? Yes. Does it make manslaughter likely? Certainly: that doesn’t require premeditation. Can observers justifiable deride the case against him? Laughably not.
To reiterate, taken as face value – which is all we CAN take it at – Alford should not be viewed as an IRRATIONAL chance-avoidance means but a calculation of the quantum of evidence in jury estimation. When taken it means that the perp thinks there’s a good chance of conviction… ‘cos of the evidence. If he thinks that, why don’t we?
This should go without saying!
Ok
1) JUNK science should have never been put in.
2) DNA SHOULD HAVE BEEN RUN ON THE CLOTHING FRIST AND FOREMOST NOT BLOOD SPLATTER TESTS. DUH!!!
3) If the police knew that blow poke was in that garage and they held it and photographed it, then they should have taken it to evidence (which if you watch the whole thing not just what you want they didn’t do) the defence found it and did that no blood at all. so if murder where is the weapon.
4) Over 250 cases of blunt force trauma to the head and not one didn’t have a skull fracture or brain trauma. I’m sorry when there is any blunt force trauma there is skull fracture or brain trauma plain and simple.
5) Medical examiner they brought in changed her report after her supervisor told her to and then was thanked by the victim’s sister. The meaning of the word vendetta – an often prolonged series of retaliatory, vengeful, or hostile acts or exchange.
6) There was a reasonable alternative of a fall that was proven shown with real science. Not an unaccepted tested that was done till they got what they wanted.
7) .07 blood alcohol ok you can’t drive a car of 2000lb or more at.04 blood alcohol what makes any of you think that at .07 you should be going up narrow stairs unlit hall after 2 or 3 bottles of wine I’m lucky to make it in the next room to the bed if there were stairs I’d sleep on the fucking couch with the compressed disc I have and screws in my foot holding it to my leg.
8) How after 17 or 18 years can you say that the first two medical exams of a body are wrong. That just screams fucking conspiracy to convict whoever the fuck you want for whatever you want. Come one atleast find a new tiny bit that shows your right and give us pictures of proof, not a cute statement of how you deemed the original 2 finings in 1985 are wrong that was done not only by 2 doctors but in 2 different counties. I want to see those odd of that happening in reality. They’re so far out there no bookie would touch them.
9) Bisexual does it matter? How many people have the same sex in a marriage? HI yes, I do. Have me and my partner talked about the fact that I’m BIsexual? HELL Yes we have. Have we talked about me seeing men for a little fun and nothing more? Hell Yes. The Number one rule with this as any couple who has one partner of a bisexual nature and one that is not will tell you is this. That as long as the extra doesn’t come home and only you come back to your partner wholely and fully with no feels for the extra is the main rule. Not a doubt in my mind because I’m in a great marriage myself.
10) I’ve seen skin split open on a flat surface before. I’ve done it to myself felt down 3 steps made of wood as a kid and knocked my head on a door jam corner if my dad had not been right there to pick me up and run me to the hospital with a towel and doing 60mph down the streets at 12:00 because I wanted water I’d not be here to insult all of you for ur 65 IQ score. Plus working in a CBRF (Community-Based Residential Facilities) we have disabled people who have many different problems but most are fall risk and I had the unfortunates of just less than 6 months ago to have a consumer Fall on to a flat floor and crack her head open 1-2 inches wide and 3-4 inches long. ( I was in a panic on the 911 call my sister-in-law is EMT that got to the scene she not only had to check my consumer but calm me down I was so upset) they try to charge me with negligence too. ( That didn’t work out well after my Boss said they have to charge everyone that worked in the house because this consumer had the same fall and injury at least once every year because she can’t just do her psychical thephery and allows most staff to baby her. Plus when single staffed with 6 people accident happen and now her staff needs therapy for at least 6 months to get thru the trama so now she has to work on a day off )
Michael Peterson is not guilty. His wife fell down the stairs because she was drunk and also had taken Valium. Once she hit her head it just bobbled on down the stairs. Why wasn’t his blood tested immediately for his alcohol level? Why didn’t his attorney asked for the DNA of his wife’s clothing? Nobody gave a damn whether he was innocent or not because all they could see was money money money high-profile case. It’s a damn shame that the legal system is no good in this country — you are guilty until proven innocent not the other way around. The reason the blood was dried was because he passed out outside and then came in and found her. Why was there no mention of strangulation until the very last show? Yeah suck on that for a while, not one mention about it through the whole damn documentary until her sister yelled it out when she was trying to belittle and berate him. This woman knew all about her husband. She was completely happy because she had the perfect family the perfect life. Maybe she drank and took Valium to forget about his other side but she was perfectly happy and in love.
I don’t believe he is guilty. I believe law enforcement zoned in on the easy answer. I also believe that Candace can believe that her sister wouldn’t be okay with it all she wants. You don’t know what goes on between a husband and wife. Women have stayed with their husbands even after discovering that they like to dress up in woman’s clothes. If they were swingers, do you think she would have shared that with you Candace??? No, you don’t share intimate details with outsiders. I’m glad that he is out and I hope he is happy knowing that his sister-in-law did not win. So sorry her period in the limelight is over.
“A man who stands for nothing will fall for anything.”— Malcolm X
Notwithstanding that he committed murder twice, I’m gay and would never mess with his guy. He looks creepy. I wonder what Kathleen saw in the ugly broke freeloader.