The docu-series follows Peterson’s trial for the murder of his wife Kathleen.
By contrast, direct evidence supports the truth of an assertion directly = ie, without need for any additional evidence or inference. Please. At having been caught by her cheating with a man?
Well, Ed, the response is simple. It ISN’T a mystery: he was found guilty and admitted that there was sufficient evidence to convict even if claiming innocence. 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. 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. Nonsense. So what’s happened to Michael Peterson since the 2018 Netflix series turned his story into an international entertainment sensation? Then only male relations with Kathleen during their marriage. 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). Irresistible deal.
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. 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. Why the blood was so dry if the event had been so recent according to him.
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.
He stayed outside to smoke for 45 minutes or so and found her at the bottom of the stairs when he came back in.
What else COULD he say after a spontaneous attack?
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! Could they have sued the county?
His kids have grown up in this environment all their lives. That poor woman! Because of some laws regarding some charges in the uk…it’s estimated that 17% are innocent but found guilty. ), I watched the documentary recently and thought, could she have found out the same night and he pushed her down the stairs. And why do we want to hear his favorite music selections during this documentary?
Plus with the things he wrote in some of his books, yeah…he’s guilty. He and his brother can make a better argument than the defense team they hired. But, I wasn’t in court, don’t have the transcripts. 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. If an owl had attacked her there would be feathers all over that bloody staircase. The blood is evidence of attack, no matter the apparent absence of a weapon. It was his best friend’s wife who died in Germany. Only on closer inspection might it seem like they were struck. In 1968 he was enlisted in the United States Marine Corps to serve in Vietnam but wa… She was in my grammar school spelling class. The docu-series follows Peterson’s trial for the murder of his wife Kathleen, who was found dead at the bottom of their staircase in their Durham, North Carolina home on December 9, 2001 — as well as the aftermath. Why isn’t he in jail? 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. All that and not crack the skull? I think the kids were too over the top expressing how great the marriage was. 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. Too bad for Petersen the jury was full of good spellers. I think she is his biological daughter! The allegation it got stuck in her hair is ridiculous. David Rudolf says he remains in contact with Michael Peterson, who was convicted in 2003 of murdering his wife, Kathleen Peterson, but was … 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.
That part of the prosecution’s case doesn’t seem impressive.
Maybe he brought a camcorder out to the pool and was bringing it back in when he found her and turned it on.
(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.).
Caitlin Atwater, Katherine’s daughter from her first marriage, later switched sides. For this reason most fail: a conviction is unforthcoming. For a writer he certainly knows how to manipulate…. 90% of those wrongfully convicted were men; 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?
Funnily enough, I was reading about this case (again) today, before your post arrived. (One of her daughters by the way) Makes no sense. “As it turned out, that’s what happened. Psychopathy – detachment / failure to behave appropriately – is consistent with his crime and gay double-life…. 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. There was so much undisclosed evidence and information that it should have been thrown out.
The accident scene was a bloodbath — inconsistent with a tumble down the stairs. So how do you call Mr. Petersen a criminal when the investigators didn’t find finger prints or anything associated with the said person??
Ultimately, what they think is irrelevant to us but probably not to him…. Furthermore, Cathleen and MP were not out by the pool that evening because there was never any pool furniture at all! Ratliff died at the age of 43. He once was a government think tank, a celebrated marine who won a purple heart, a government consultant, a best seller author who wrote “A Time of War: A Bitter Peace,” “The Immortal Dragon,” novels and a columnist for a local newspaper.
“… 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. Marked man.
What we can say is he was very fortunate to get away with eight years. The role of the prosecution is to portray MP as having committed a murder and I believed that did the best they could. They didn’t need a murder weapon to deduce that – it was obvious. who was found dead at the bottom of their staircase in their Durham, North Carolina home on December 9, 2001 — as well as the aftermath. But in your case it was because they wrongly believed the accuser. None of them are based on science, evidence, or any professional expert opinion. When writing fiction, one tends to get into character. A Forensic Files Murder That Went on a Binge(“A Novel Idea,” Forensic Files). 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). 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.
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). What are the odds of having 2 dead wives at the bottom of a staircase? sadly judges and jurors make mistakes and police conspiracy and perjury is common practice in far too many cases. Michael and Kathleen married in 1997.
” What guilty person would tell the cops she fell down the steps and that bloodbath was the result of just a fall?!”. Michael or Mike hails from Nashville, Tennessee, the U.S, where he was born. Someone is filming everything. I have watched the series, read articles, plus reading opinions from above.
She was Liz’s daughter. “The only reason a state offers an Alford plea is to get themselves off the hook for a crooked trial.”. But I didn’t ask the question; the poster I was replying to did! Furthermore, he was previously convicted, getting a second trial due to matters that likely unaffected the first trial’s outcome.
Peterson was convicted of first-degree murder in connection with Kathleen’s death, and spent nearly a decade behind bars. In the apparent absence of an intruder/weapon people would indeed think the person had fallen badly and hit their head. “What guilty person would tell the cops she fell down the steps and that bloodbath was the result of just a fall?!”. Usually the first, and simplest, explanation is correct.
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. Murdering for money does not make sense as Kathleen made good money and had excellent credentials to work anywhere. What 2 dead wives?
What was he hiding? It came out that a leg injury he said happened during battle actually came from a car accident. Wow, had no idea this nut job was out and about. Police dint buys his explanation that it was accidental, and after thorough investigations, it was determined that Peterson killed her and was found guilty of manslaughter. 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. Umm Marcus, are you a lawyer or a professional criminal? Just because they claim or appear to support him doesn’t mean they believe him innocent. The owl theory to me makes the most sense.
but doubts mean he should have never been found guilty in the first place. There’s no necessary claim that this was premeditated. Michael and Kathleen married in 1997.
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.
It wasn’t about the crime — it was about the process.”. I would also think they would have found blood trails and in trees where the owl flew. 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. Truly amazing how people scream guilty.
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. 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. Let’s pretend for one second that she is his biological daughter. What an inane statement.
We know he’s capable of lying for gain, as he did – stupidly – over the medals for office. the law says if there is doubt you should not convict. Any recent words from David Rudolf, by any chance? DNA TEST MICHAEL & ADOPTED DAUGHTER MARGARET!! 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.
Certainly not for Ratliff.