PDA

View Full Version : NC - Michael Peterson charged in death of wife Kathleen Peterson






Pages : [1] 2

Sprocket
08-13-2003, 07:48 PM
Thought I would put up a thread for discussion of this current trial.

Newswolf
08-14-2003, 03:11 PM
I've been watching this one as I can. Bizarre. I think sometimes 2+2 does not make 4. The previous 20 year old felldownstairs death may just not add up as murder. I don't see how Michael Peterson benefited from her death. As for Kathleen, I want to see how the defense explains the blood spatter 6 feet high. I don't think the "escort" helped the prosecution. BUT it looks like murder to me. That said, there was a famous case in Ky of an architect convicted of murdering his wife. She was found among an amazing blood pattern in the bathroom of their home. If I remember correctly, the convicted husband was later pardoned after the defense provided medical expert testimony that she was so drunk she fell and spattered the blood herself, or something like that. Some thought he was pardoned because he was rich and connected, some thought it was a miscarriage of justice . Oh, just remembered, his name was William Blanton Moore, I will have to look up the particulars. Anyway, things may or may not be as they seem.

Up2theminute
08-14-2003, 10:10 PM
Expert gives jury a tutorial in blood spatter
DURHAM, N.C. — When police arrived to find Kathleen Peterson dead at the bottom of a staircase in the expansive home she shared with her husband, novelist Michael Peterson, one of the first things that struck officers was the amount of blood.
http://www.courttv.com/trials/novelist/081303_ctv.html


and


Peterson's lawyer grills blood spatter analyst on credentials

Aug 13, 2003 : 10:18 pm ET

DURHAM -- A defense lawyer spent much of Wednesday morning attacking the credentials of a State Bureau of Investigation blood-spatter analyst, contending the analyst wasn't qualified to testify as an expert witness in Michael Peterson's first-degree murder trial.

http://www.herald-sun.com/durham/4-380368.html

Up2theminute
08-16-2003, 02:30 PM
Analyst testifies outside of jury's presence


By CRAIG JARVIS, Staff Writer

DURHAM -- A N.C. State Bureau of Investigation analyst, testifying late Thursday afternoon outside the jury's presence, virtually placed Mike Peterson at the center of a bloody beating of his wife in a stairwell.

More Here (http://www.newsobserver.com/peterson/story/2775477p-2572783c.html)

AussieSim
08-16-2003, 11:09 PM
Isn't it amazing what blood splatter patterns can tell you?!?

I hope the forensics nail this case.

Aussie

Up2theminute
08-18-2003, 11:42 PM
This is the newspaper for the Raleigh area and the section that has all the Peterson info (kind of like what the Mod. Bee has for Laci).

The Peterson Trial: What Really Happened?
http://www.newsobserver.com/peterson/

Newswolf
08-20-2003, 01:32 PM
Does not seem that the blood spatter evidence is going Peterson's way. From what I have seen of the pros. expert.

Interesting how his brother appears on Court Tv defending.

They look SO much alike.

tthoman
08-21-2003, 11:11 AM
NEWSWOLF:

I watch when I can also but I get the daily online News/Observer paper...(very well written)...and if you log onto News/Observer after googling.....they have a wonderful, wonderful timeline,etc. group of articles which you can peruse to your heart's content........At the time of Ratliff's demise, 18 years ago, she was much better off financially than the Petersons..(first wife). And he stood to gain $40,000 plus the military monthly stipends the daughters received from their father's estate.........(half of their father's salary as a captain)........

I believe him to be the culprit......

tthoman
08-21-2003, 11:57 AM
POST SCRIPT:

Forgot to mention that a few years before Ratliff's death, she had named the Petersons to be legal guardians of her two little daughters in case something happened to her..........there's the money trail.......

Newswolf
08-22-2003, 03:49 AM
tthoman, I didn't realize all that about the $$. Very interesting. I'm wading through the newspaper site, thanks

tthoman
08-22-2003, 04:07 AM
NEWSWOLF: YOU'RE WELCOME........!

Jeana (DP)
08-27-2003, 12:25 AM
The judge is allowing the statement from a German woman who says she saw Petersen leaving the scene of Ratliff's murder in a big fat hurry. Unfortunately, she can't be cross-examined because of some sort of medical problem. This is all the defense is going to need to win an appeal. I think Petersen is and will be found guilty, but he'll be freed pending this appeal, which will be won, in my opinion. I see another trial in his future.

DocWatson
09-05-2003, 09:36 AM
The autopsies of Kathleen Peterson and Elizabeth Ratliff are nearly identical in terms of blows to head etc. What are the odds of a man finding 2 women mysteriously dead from head injuries following fall down the stairs? You can dismiss one as bad luck, but two is ridiculous. Even if motive is murky, it's pretty clear Peterson did this.

FYI, one of the Ratliff daughters looks striking like Mike Peterson! Which relates to another very odd fact about this case: Peterson was married to wife number 1 when they adopted Ratliff kids, but when they got divorced, these adopted daughters stayed with Dad not Mom. It was only later that he married wife 2. So I'm not a good enough fiction writer to piece this all together, but certainly can imagine a love triangle gone bad that induces enough guilt to deal with consequences (by all accounts, he has been very good Dad to these girls, who, unlike Kathleen Peterson's blood daughter, do not believe their adoptive father is guilty). Strange case.

Rosebud
09-05-2003, 02:36 PM
I noticed that, too (how much the Ratliff kids look like M.P.). Also, I think the resemblance between Liz and Kathleen also is remarkable. What is with his obsession with Liz?

I've only been watching the trial for the last few weeks, but I know Peterson is a piece of work: control freak, embellisher (Purple Heart), willing to sit around making appointments with male "escorts" while his wife worrires about termites, bats, his free-loading kids, her job at Nortel.

I have no doubt that her did it. But I'm worried about the outcome. The prosecution hasn't been all that swift, and the defense hasn't even presented their side yet.

boody
09-08-2003, 12:04 PM
I am addicted to the trial on court tv. Does anyone have a link to pics of the Ratliff kids so I can see this for myself. If anyone could help, its greatly appreciated.

I just realized watching Nancy Grace last week that Kathleen Peterson had defense wounds all over her arms!! How in hell is the defense gonna explain that? Now I think I'm sure!

tthoman
09-08-2003, 01:12 PM
BOODY:

If you log onto the Durham newspaper, the News Observer, there are wonderful pictures........They are running a fantastic special day by day report on this case. You may have to register...It is a great newspaper.

Up2theminute
09-08-2003, 03:39 PM
The Staircase & The Novelist's Wife
Court TV full coverage
http://www.courttv.com/trials/novelist/index.html

tthoman
09-10-2003, 03:02 AM
UP2 & ALL:

I like the judge and the prosecutorial team......

Today it was announced that Michael Peterson's sister believes he did in fact kill both Ratliff and Kathleen.

Norma
09-11-2003, 02:58 AM
I come running home from work every afternoon just to try and catch some type of update as to what's happened during the day - but this has been dragging on so long now!

Do you think the Peterson will take the stand in his defense?

(might need the afternoon off if that's the case... lol)

Jeana (DP)
09-11-2003, 07:21 AM
Pook, if Petersen testifies, I'm going to need oral surgery because my mouth is going to be hanging down to the ground permanently!! He's so guilty its not even funny. As a side note - does he look incredibly creepy to anyone else, or is it just me? I get the creeps just looking at him!!

sariebell
09-11-2003, 12:07 PM
Yeah he looks creepy. He reminds me of Dirk Grineder that other guy who killed his wife and lived an alternate (bisexual) lifestyle.

tthoman
09-12-2003, 07:52 AM
POOK:

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAA! You will definitely HAVE to take the day off and call room-service!!!!!!!!!

He looks just like an elf to me........he is so totally guilty it's unreal. Those Ratliff girls are in denial......feel sorry for them.

I hate the way he deliberately rubs his face with his left hand when he thinks the camera is on him so you can view his wedding ring........UGH!.......he's right handed (watch when he pours water)!!

boody
09-12-2003, 11:24 AM
This trial is v. addictive. I just started college as an older student and I'll tape Nancy Grace & reward myself if I've done my readings, etc for school. Isn't that sick???

You know they are going to smear her before the defense is done. I feel so sorry for her. Her 1st husband cheated on her w/ a woman, her 2nd husband cheated on her w/ men & then killed her, and now her step-son, who I'm sure she financially took care of, is calling her a drunk! (At least that was the snippet I got last week, can anyone confirm or flesh this out?) And now they will crucify her in absentia in the rest of this trial, mark my words.

tthoman
09-12-2003, 03:35 PM
BOODY:

You pretty much have the picture clearly. She was the ONLY breadwinner of the family and was convinced she was going to lose her job the up-coming January........(it was revealed recently that she was on the cut list).......She supported them all and it wasn't peanuts! Mega bucks..........He stood to benefit over a million upon her death from her company........while she was still with the company! He did her in while the doing was good.

Nancy Grace is great!

sariebell
09-14-2003, 12:20 PM
I am intrigued by the college student who claimed they were supposed to meet and have "anal". I missed that whole segment, and my parents keep saying therein lies the motive. Apparently the guy is leading a double life. That's a tough row to hoe. I also think the condoms in the bedroom upstairs have something to do with the crime. SOMEONE was upstairs doing something with condoms that night, even though MP claims they were by the pool drinking. I'm sorry, Kathleen didn't fall up the stairs, ya know?

I am obsessed with this trial. I am a teacher and confess that during my lunch break, I turn on the TV and watch it in my classroom as I choke down a bite to eat. I first learned of the trial when I visited some attorney friends of my boyfriend's in Raleigh and they were giving me the lowdown on the court system and the major players in the area. Super intriguing!

tthoman
09-14-2003, 02:09 PM
SARIEBELL:

That must have been interesting. I am quite impressed with the dignified and cultured demeanor of the Carolinians. I like Mr. Hardin's quiet strength. I think they are pretty sharp and not the "rubes" MP, Rudolf, & company, like to insinuate.

Dear old Dr. Lee is this week, I think.

sariebell
09-14-2003, 09:01 PM
I am familiar with the David Rudolf defense machine, because I watched almost every minute of the Rae Carruth trial. If find Rudolf extremely offensive, though brilliant and effective! As far as the Carolinian prosecution, Hardin is a little emotional, though I find that a plus, myself...nothing wrong with believing in your cause. I worry about the other prosecutor taking the witnesses out to dinner or something like that. Though it was probably done in good faith, one still must apply the general protocols of law to this trial as well, even if people are travelling a great distance. I love to hear about Jim Hardin's mom preparing the lunch every day on court tv. It reminds me of my own relatives in NC...some people are just good as gold!

My friends mostly related to me that the Durham police force is notable for their follies. They said that the legal system in the area was going to be overwhelmed by this case. I guess they were right!

tthoman
09-14-2003, 11:38 PM
SARIEBELL:

I want Mama Hardin's receipes!!!!!!! Did you know that she had two sons and a daughter perish in a fire ?

Yes, to hear that Freda took the out -of- town witnesses to dinner was unusual but I doubt that it amounted to anything. Freda is not dumb and they are very hospitable in North Carolina.

I think MP was counting on the foibles of the police exonerating him but I think they were smarter than he thought.

We shall see.

tthoman
09-15-2003, 06:10 PM
SARIEBELL:

As Nancy Grace said today: "I never thought I'd see the day that Henry Lee would be on the ropes".......! Hardin ruled the day with Lee and was superb.

Lee's performance was appalling. He was defensive, not credible, not focused, and did not seem prepared. He was ego-driven, posturing, and his behaviour was annoying.

You could tell by Rudolf's body language when they all were leaving the court room that he was thinking "You blew it, Lee".

sariebell
09-15-2003, 07:11 PM
I was unable to catch any of Dr. Lee's testimony today, but I am glad to hear that he didn't just breeze through. He is obviously a hired gun and though he would not lie on the stand by any means, he certainly must tailor his findings to meet a certain objective...much like the prosecution does. It has seemed almost unfair to me that the prosecution is always dealt the players that it gets, i.e. the LE et al that work the case. The defense, on the other hand, has the ability to shop around for the most dazzling of witnesses who will testify to the info they want to illuminate. I am happy that even the wonderful Henry Lee can't convince that the fall was au naturel. Too much blood...it's obvious to the eye.

The similarities between the Ratliffe and the Petersen
"incidents" are shocking. I wonder if the jury will simply see pictures of the two women. Their appearances are noticably similar.

I wish I had enough sense to tape the trial during the day to watch at night. I think that is the same reason I don't just get Tivo...letting TV rule my life is not necessarily such a good thing ;)

tthoman
09-15-2003, 07:32 PM
SARIEBELL:

The jury has seen very moving and dramatic testimony concerning the Ratliff murder from the prosecutorial witnesses who came from Germany as well as her sister who came from Rhode Island.

I don't think I would like to be in a relationship with MP and resemble those two women, especially around Christmas.

I wouldn't feel too sorry for Mr. Hardin's experts; after today they reign supreme. Lee made a fool out of himself.

Up2theminute
09-15-2003, 09:56 PM
I agree that there's a resemblance between Elizabeth and Kathleen. I noticed that right away the first time I ever saw their pictures. I hadn't noticed the resemblance in kids but I suppose there is a little bit. Very wierd. Wouldn't that be something if those were his kids through an affair and that's another added reason he stood to benefit so much from Elizabeth's death?!
I live in North Carolina and I must admit I don't hear much about this case at all. The most coverage on this case is Court TV and online newspaper links. I don't usually buy the hardcopy of the News & Observer so maybe they do cover it a lot in the print form, I'm not sure, but mostly I just check what they put online.

Silver Dollar
09-16-2003, 08:29 AM
The words of Henry Lee:
http://boards.go.com/cgi/WTVD/request.dll?MESSAGE&room=PetersonTrial&id=395&move=next

If this were not a murder case, it would be funny--coming from an expert.

sariebell
09-16-2003, 01:02 PM
WOW!
Thanks for the link. Interesting quotes from Mr. Lee. I am presently on my lunch break and watching a bit of the Dr. Lee reruns. So far I have seen very little besides commercials. The court is on lunch break.

When I first heard of this trial, I was really fence sitting. I was pretty convinced that the lady just fell down the stairs, b/c I didn't see any real motive. Now, I hear so much periferal info....condom wrappers (key in my opinion), money problems, homosexual rendezvous, a similar incident years ago, now I think there is more than just mere coincidence here.


It seems like Mr. Lee was pretty theatrical in court, but was a little goofy. I would never have expected such from him. I guess he was just hired to come with his big reputation and expound upon the case. As for research and knowledge of the particular case, he had very little to offer.

It just keeps getting better and better.

So, the Ratliffe case within a case was allowed in, I guess. It's hard to keep up with so much testimony outside the jury's presence. Did the gay college student testimony come in? Was there any mention of the condom and wrappers in the master bedroom? These are key elements in my opinion.

Back to work :o

tthoman
09-16-2003, 01:17 PM
All came into testimony........can't remember whether the unused condom (hadn't about the wrappers) has been mentioned or not yet.

Lee talks to the jury as if they are retarded. Peterson is looking agitated and worried. I have heard he has a SHORT fuse.....DUH! hahahahahaa.......They're on their lunch break right now.

I think Hardin is impeaching Lee with Lee's own book.

SILVERDOLLAR: FABULOUS LINK!

tthoman
09-16-2003, 02:54 PM
SARIEBELL:

Ratliff case not ever brought into Lee's testimony....just Kathleen. Overall, Hardin made some excellent in-roads with Lee. Lee's testimony finished. Deaver appears on equal footing with Lee.

I don't think Rudolf or MP too pleased with Lee, now.

On a personal level, I think Lee likes Hardin better than Rudolf.

boody
09-16-2003, 07:55 PM
I was taking a nap & my boyfriend woke me up before work to tell me that the prosecution sprang it on Henry Lee that there was no blood found in Kathleen Peterson's mouth! After two days of Henry Lee and his medium velocity ketchup-coughs, I thought that this would be a BOMBSHELL! But this was not even remarked upon by the trial commentators. What's up with that? Am I not understanding something? To me, the state has just proven its case.

tthoman
09-16-2003, 09:58 PM
BOODY:

You're right. Don't worry about the Court TV commentators. THINK for yourself.

There was so much about Lee's testimonium of both days which my mind could weigh and sift through, that caused me to realize, point-blank, that he really WAS there to promote an agenda.....and an agenda only! And he realized that Hardin had exposed this, I believe.

He was so un-prepared.....I think he realized that he had really sold the prosecutorial team short.......... And thus the rub between he and Rudolf!

sariebell
09-17-2003, 06:11 PM
I caught a little bit of the video the defense witness made to explain the wounds made by the "fall". It looked pretty ridiculous to me, but I wonder if all these experts won't plant reasonable doubt in at least one juror's mind. I'm beginning foresee a hung jury or an aquittal.

Thanks for the updates from yesterday!

tthoman
09-17-2003, 07:15 PM
SARIEBELL:

Wasn't able to see very much but what I saw was pretty boring and silly. It's that one seed of doubt which worries me but maybe we are worrying for nothing. MP should not be able to walk away from this.

boody
09-19-2003, 12:51 AM
Hey! I missed the stuff I'm hearing from you guys about the condom wrapper! Somebody pleeeeaase fill me in! (I'm in withdrawal since the jury got their hurric-vacation!)

Condom? Condom wrapper? Huh?

Silver Dollar
09-19-2003, 09:29 AM
This is the best site I have found on any information you may want about this case:

http://www.vanceholmes.com/court/trial_m_peterson.html

Silver Dollar
09-19-2003, 09:37 AM
Oops! That site was the 4th page. This site takes you to the main menu:

http://www.vanceholmes.com/court/index.html

{Sorry bout that! I am still learning.}

tthoman
09-19-2003, 01:10 PM
SILVER DOLLAR:

THAT IS FANTASTIC! THANKS!

Silver Dollar
09-21-2003, 10:47 AM
Just knowing MP was in Viet Nam as a high ranking officer, I found this site interesting about the hyoid fracture. VEERRY INFORMATIVE!

http://bjj.org/articles/971008-revive/

Your thoughts?

sariebell
09-21-2003, 01:37 PM
Thanks for the info!

tthoman
09-21-2003, 02:17 PM
SILVER DOLLAR:

My thyroid cartilage is now hurting!!!!! Thanks for the info.
You know he claimed to have been awarded a Purple Heart but it was un-covered that he had lied.

sariebell
09-23-2003, 12:50 PM
Bombshell defense day, to use the court tv anchor's words. The alleged murder weapon, a "blowpoke", which has been missing, suddenly appeared mysteriously in court today. I was worried about the prosecution's adherence to that as the murder weapon, because they have kept too tight to something they couldn't find, but now I'm really worried. The item was supposedly found in the Peterson home in the "garage/basement" area and was introduced without foundation by the defense. The prosecution must have been shell-shocked, because they did not object. I am very skeptical about the item's admittance into evidence, as well as who found it, since Peterson and his family/friends reside in the home. I am really getting worried that the defendant is going to walk. It looks like my attorney friends from Raleigh might have been right... LE and DA's offices in the area are notorious for being bumbling idiots. I wouldn't go that far, but it looks like they might have at least fumbled. I like the prosecution team, and it looks like the crime scene preservation is certainly better than some, but to overlook the supposed murder weapon in the home and to count on it as the "smoking gun" is not very savvy in my opinion.

This case just gets more and more suspense filled for me. I do await the prosecution rebuttal and the closing arguments. Maybe the prosecution will ignite some of its passion and drive their main points home. Sometimes cases get so lost in the periferal stuff and lose the main objective.

Jeana (DP)
09-23-2003, 03:53 PM
If the police are so incompetent that they couldn't find this article in the defendant's garage and the jury doesn't buy their case, then its too bad for the prosecution. Just because some of all of us might think this guy's guilty, if the state cannot prove it beyond a reasonable doubt, then he deserves to walk.

boody
09-23-2003, 05:32 PM
The police couldn't find it in the defendant's garage because it wasn't there when they looked, in my opinion.

And I don't care if a prosecution is made up of circus clowns & potato-headed freaks; a two-time murdering, lying sack of garbage never deserves to walk.

Jeana (DP)
09-23-2003, 05:59 PM
Originally posted by boody
The police couldn't find it in the defendant's garage because it wasn't there when they looked, in my opinion.

And I don't care if a prosecution is made up of circus clowns & potato-headed freaks; a two-time murdering, lying sack of garbage never deserves to walk.


If that's true, then the police need to do a better job. If the guy is guilty, I hope the jury (whose there to hear all of the evidence) finds him guilty. I just think the state needs to PROVE it, that's all. Hopefully, they'll prove the crap out of it and he won't tie the state up in appeals until hell freezes over and then get a new trial!

Wudge
09-23-2003, 10:37 PM
Originally posted by Jeana (DP)
If that's true, then the police need to do a better job. If the guy is guilty, I hope the jury (whose there to hear all of the evidence) finds him guilty. I just think the state needs to PROVE it, that's all. Hopefully, they'll prove the crap out of it and he won't tie the state up in appeals until hell freezes over and then get a new trial!

Jeana... The prosecution's whole case was pure fantasyland. They never had a murder weapon in either of the two alleged murders, nor could they establish a clear, much less a compelling, motive in either of these supposed murders. Even before today's blowpoke surprise, David Rudolf had moved so far into the reasonable doubt zone that the D.A. couldn't find him if he used the Hubble telescope.

The fact that the prosecution brought the blowpoke into the trial as the murder wearpon without having LE first certify that it was not in the house or on the grounds proves their massive incompetence, which is exactly what Michael Peterson wrote about in his press articles. The irony is that the trial proves he was 100% correct, and he will end up writing a best seller as a result, which centers on the stunning incompetency by LE and the prosecution in his own murder trial.

I watched the whole trial, and in my estimation, the D.A, Hardin, and Freda Black's incompetency in this trial surpassed even the incompetency record established by Marsha Clark and Chris Darden in the OJ trial.

Simply put, this case should never have been brought to trial. It was a massive abuse of power by the prosecutor's office to have done so. Fittingly, the prosecutors will leave the courtroom with their heads down, their tails between their legs and impaled on the hard sword of justice.

tthoman
09-24-2003, 12:24 AM
Hey Wudge!

You write so well but I disagree!!! I am completely on the prosecution's side in this case.

And also believe old crafty MP had hidden it very carefully somewhere.....perhaps up in the chimney (there are a lot of chimneys).......

sariebell
09-24-2003, 10:30 AM
I agree Tthoman! Wudge writes so articulately, but I disagree in some respects as well. I do believe that the LE and prosecution have dropped the ball. I do not believe that Michael Peterson is innocent. When I first started watching and talking about this trial, I really thought it was a stretch that a case was brought to court at all. After settling in and hearing the evidence, I drastically changed my mind. I do believe that he is guilty. There are too many cooincidences, and there aren't that many in the natural world. I am afraid that Rudolf has one upped the prosecution team one too many times. They were no match for Rudolf's excellence (I hate him so much I love him). Wudge is probably right, much to my dismay, that Peterson will get ultimate poetic justice when he writes a bestseller about getting away with murder. There is new news about Candace (Kathleen's sister) carrying a long skinny box into the court. I wish that the trial had stuck to the facts and not veered into crazy land with all this blow poke business. Oh well, here we go!

tthoman
09-24-2003, 11:24 AM
SARIEBELL:

Maybe the fp poker was the logical conclusion as to his weapon after Mr. Hardin had met with Candace originally. It makes sense.

I haven't watched it this week...relying on the News/Observer.

Remember when the Irish nanny said in a private interview that he had told her long ago she would be reading about herself in one of his books? He and Rudolf are so full of themselves that in the end, he will outsmart himself.

sariebell
09-24-2003, 12:40 PM
I hope you are right. I have had a chance to watch and keep up with websleuths today, because it is my laid back day of teaching and I have all my extra work done! I am more and more interested in this case. It really could go either way, but "reasonable doubt" is easier to get than a conviction for murder!

Candace seems like her heart is definitely in the right place, but she is overpowering. She is a bit too much! I guess she may have overly influenced the prosecution to think of the blow poke as the murder weapon. Much like the Courttv anchors, I had never heard of such an instrument until this case came onto the scene.

I'll update if I hear anything terribly interesting. I was interested in the testimony of the evidence custodian who reiterated the list of items which came in. The "used" condom and the wrapper were mentioned. I think the prosecution should have really made more of those items, especially given the hustler guy that went on the stand. If Kathleen caught MP in bed with a homosexual-college-student-hustler, she would probably have flown off the handle! Especially since her money was being spent to pay for it!!!LOL!
I'd like to see him explain that scene away with "just doing research for my new book..."

Wudge
09-24-2003, 12:46 PM
Originally posted by sariebell
I agree Tthoman! Wudge writes so articulately, but I disagree in some respects as well. I do believe that the LE and prosecution have dropped the ball. I do not believe that Michael Peterson is innocent. When I first started watching and talking about this trial, I really thought it was a stretch that a case was brought to court at all. After settling in and hearing the evidence, I drastically changed my mind. I do believe that he is guilty. There are too many cooincidences, and there aren't that many in the natural world. I am afraid that Rudolf has one upped the prosecution team one too many times. They were no match for Rudolf's excellence (I hate him so much I love him). Wudge is probably right, much to my dismay, that Peterson will get ultimate poetic justice when he writes a bestseller about getting away with murder. There is new news about Candace (Kathleen's sister) carrying a long skinny box into the court. I wish that the trial had stuck to the facts and not veered into crazy land with all this blow poke business. Oh well, here we go!

Michael Peterson may not be innocent, and I don't know whether Michael Peterson killed his wife or not, nor does anyone else. Jurors are not asked to find the truth, nor are they asked to render a verdict based on what they feel, think or believe; they are asked to guage the existence of reasonable doubt based on the evidence made available to them.

I approach all cases and trials from the perspective of reasonable doubt. And I do it based on the evidence available at any point in time. This keeps me in perfect tune to what the end deliverable will be, a Guilty/Not Guilty verdict based on the weight of the evidence measured against the reasonable doubt hurdle.

I will leave the determination of the truth to a power far greater than I. I simply wait for the weight of the evidence to take me up and over the reasonable doubt hurdle, and it never came close in this trial. My position throughout the course of this trial was Not Guilty -- Not Guilty does not mean innocent -- and with most every passing day, a Not Guilty verdict was becoming more assurred as I watched he the needle on my evidentiary weighing scales continually drift deeper into the Not Guilty zone.

In this trial, we heard of two alleged murders. One death, Ms. Ratlif's, did not take place in Michael Peterson's home, nor was the woman his wife, nor did she die of bleed out, but she had often complained of the very worst of headache's in the weeks before she was found dead, which the original medical examiner determined occurred from a cerebral hemorrhage.

The other dead woman, Kathleen Peterson, was his wife and she died of bleed out -- as we all are well aware -- and she had also complained of severe headaches, and it is also very significant that she suffered a half hour of blindness in the days just before her death. Additionally, she had taken valium and been heavily drinking the night that she died -- alcohol is a well known blood thinner/lubricant, it acts like aspirin, and will it also facilitate bleed out .

In neither case was any alleged murder weapon found, and in neither case was a clear, much less a compelling, motive established.

I won't go into what reasonable doubt entails here, but it is not comprised of rank speculation and conjecture, which is what the prosecution's case represented..

The evidence simply was not there, and, for the most part, each prosecution witness did far more for the defense than they did for the prosecution. The prosecution never came close to establishing a clear and convincing preponderance of the evidence basket that would enable a jury to breach the reasonable doubt hurdle.

To me, this case represented a major abuse of prosecutorial power, such things do happen, sadly. It simply should never have been brought to the inside of a courtroom, a provable case was not there, period.

I never have an axe to grind with anyone who is charged with a crime, I just guage the evidence that we are aware of. In the Kobe case, things look very bad for him, indeed. Yet, before the alleged rape incident occurred, I liked him a lot and thought he well represented himself to be one of the best models the NBA had to offer to the public. I will wait for the evidence to be tested during a ttrial, but as things stand now Kobe will be fortunate if he walks away with a Not Guilty verdict. In the Laci Peterson case, I think Scott is a louse, cad, liar, and adulterer, but there is no citable hard evidence against him, so my reasonable doubt needle reads Not Guilty at this time.

These cases represent how I have always operated; I am evidence oriented, and I weigh each evidentiary item differently as well. If I classified and weighed all the evidence the same, I would have voted Not Guilty for David Westerfield. However, I had him Guilty, because the DNA of the blood evidence -- it ranked much higher on the evidentiary totem pole -- trumped the scientific testimony of the four entomologists -- including the prosecution's own "expert" entomologist -- who were in David Westerfield's camp.

That's the way I operate; it's just the way things are with me.

Wudge
09-24-2003, 01:16 PM
Originally posted by tthoman
Hey Wudge!

You write so well but I disagree!!! I am completely on the prosecution's side in this case.

And also believe old crafty MP had hidden it very carefully somewhere.....perhaps up in the chimney (there are a lot of chimneys).......

tthoman.... Thank you for the compliment, it most certainly beats the mortar shells that I continually duck in most forums. lol

If you follow this case closely, you may enjoy the site below, which has some nice links and commentary to the case under the heading of: "Stranger Than Fiction", the Michael Peterson murder trial.

Thank you once again and my best regards.

http://www.vanceholmes.com/court/index.html

Jeana (DP)
09-24-2003, 03:44 PM
Wudge, thank you for your interpretation of the trial. Unfortunately, I haven't seen any of it, but the snippets I've read on Court TV and the like make me think you may be onto something. I cannot fathom how they're going to get out of the murder weapon theory now.

tthoman
09-24-2003, 07:34 PM
HEY ALL:

Saw a tiny bit today....the expert witness for the prosecution was EXCELLENT.........

For Rudolf to have just discovered the blow poke introduced yesterday (over the weeknend supposedly in Peterson's garage) is tommyrot....he is grandstanding. Also, the police went over the house, garage, and grounds with a fine tooth comb. Rudolf is trying to pretend he's having a 'Perry Mason' moment, I think.

WUDGE: Thanks for the link!!!!! Appreciate it!

Wudge
09-26-2003, 03:22 PM
Originally posted by Jeana (DP)
Wudge, thank you for your interpretation of the trial. Unfortunately, I haven't seen any of it, but the snippets I've read on Court TV and the like make me think you may be onto something. I cannot fathom how they're going to get out of the murder weapon theory now.

Jeana, I watched the whole trial, and, as I said in my posts, the prosecutorial incompetence displayed throughout this trial was simply stunning, and to have even brought this trial to the inside of a courtroom represented a major abuse of prosecutorial power. This trial is what you are supposed to find in Disneyland, not in a courtroom.

I am happy the prosecutors are going down with their absurd fantasyland case in a flaming death spiral on national TV. If any justice is to be found in this sad excuse for a trial, their coming crash and burn is it.. You can color me very happy.

boody
09-26-2003, 07:22 PM
Today's cross was amazing. How about when Rudolf kept "accidentally" mispronouncing the guy's name. The whole thing was a bloodbath.

I'm worried this guy Saami is gonna kill himself. Seriously. Did anyone see the look on his face when he was sitting at the bench, after the lunch break? It was painful to see.

Wudge
09-27-2003, 09:26 AM
Originally posted by boody
Today's cross was amazing. How about when Rudolf kept "accidentally" mispronouncing the guy's name. The whole thing was a bloodbath.

I'm worried this guy Saami is gonna kill himself. Seriously. Did anyone see the look on his face when he was sitting at the bench, after the lunch break? It was painful to see.

I saw the whole thing; I watched the whole trial. This guy came off as a boldfaced liar, and he was caught doing it in open court on national TV. I think it was fitting justice, but that doesn't bother me one iota that he look sorry for his false testimony. What I am concerned about is other trials where this guy might have sold a jury a bill of goods via his junk science methods supported by false credentials.

I think it was lost in the shuffle, but he also claimed to have authored 60 articles that had received critical per review, which, like his Temple affiliation, was a blatant lie as well. I have no sympatthy for him whatsover. He violated the oath he swore to uphold, and he did it far more than once. I hope he goes to prison.

boody
09-27-2003, 11:38 AM
That's pretty harsh. You never lied on your resume? I know I have. I agree the guy shouldn't have done it, & he came off like a total chucklehead during the toiletbowl incident, but he looked so despondent my heart went out to him. His whole personal & professional life is down the (toilet) drain; it seemed to me his testimony is commonon-sensical so it's a shame the jury must disregard it.
What doesn't make sense is that somebody would accidentally "fall" and land in that position, or that somebody would cough out blood at the rate needed to produced the stains on the wall, and yet not have an iota of blood in their mouth!

tthoman
09-27-2003, 01:31 PM
MONDAY WILL PROVE INTERESTING....

sariebell
10-01-2003, 06:50 PM
Hey, gang!
I found it an interesting last few days. Jurors dismissed, the jury's requests for published exhibits... Lots of interesting commentary. Many predict a hung jury. What do you think?

tthoman
10-01-2003, 07:50 PM
SARIEBELL:

Am so glad you wrote!!!! Am crushed!!!! If that guilty MP doesn't get off scot-free it will be a miracle!!!!!!! You KNOW he did it!

I will say this: IT HAS BEEN INTERESTING! Isn't that hilarious about the drunk juror????? hahahahaha

The judge should not have ruined the Brit's reputation as he did....it was splitting hairs.

boody
10-01-2003, 11:05 PM
I'm sorry too because I think MP is guilty of two murders and he'll walk free.
I don't think it's hilarious about the drunk juror. He was a recovering alcoholic & because of the schedule & the disruption to his regular life he probably wasn't able to get to AA meetings and he fell off the wagon because of that and the stress. Sorry if I'm not hahaha-ing, because I think MP, through the evil he has done and its consequences, has just claimed another (albeit) living victim who is probably going through the depths of hell and despair and humiliation tonight as he realizes how he let everyone down. My heart goes out to him.

tthoman
10-02-2003, 12:29 AM
BOODY: YOU HAVE A TENDER HEART..........But I am looking at the total irony of the situation.

Please excuse.

Doyle
10-02-2003, 09:24 AM
A second juror in Michael Peterson's murder trial is on the cusp of being dismissed after an alleged booze-fueled, profanity-laced escapade Tuesday evening landed him in jail overnight.
http://www.courttv.com/trials/novelist/100103_ctv.html

sariebell
10-02-2003, 01:21 PM
Yeah, I agree that the poor British physicist's reputation is ruined and the judge let that happen. You know, I was thinking about how that could happen. My dad is a brilliant chemical engineer who technically works for UT Battell (sp?) the contractor who oversees operations for Oak Ridge National Laboratory. His research is fairly independent, however, in that grant money usually funds it. He also works very closely with UT, our University, teaching post doc chem engineering courses. I do not know if this is the case now, but I am aware that he has taught many of these courses for free. He needs the students to help with his research, and the course credit helps them further their education. If he were not being paid by UT when he was asked to testify, would his resume or c.v. still include his work at the university? I would think so. I guess I am trying to illustrate that people can be affiliated with universities, without being on the payroll. At huge universities, the human resources depts are unaware of most of the goings on in terms of professors who might consult or work for free. This guy may have continued some research that he started at Temple, but Temple was no longer paying him. We just don't know, because he was not able to defend himself.

I am afraid that David Rudolf is going to get the verdict that he desires. He is so gifted, though I can't stand him or his way!

The jury's perusal/requests for exhibits were so interesting! That list made me have hope for the prosecution. They wanted to see pics of the victim, her sweatpants with his shoe print on them, pics of the neighbor's house from Germany. The fact that they are at least thinking about the Ratliffe murder, makes me think some of them may "believe" it. It ain't over til the fat lady sings!

tthoman
10-02-2003, 04:41 PM
SARIEBELL:

I dare not give myself hope at this point, even though I agree with you about the jury's perusal list. I have not watched Rudolf today very much as I find him so repugnant and his points so lame.

That is so true about the Brit's situation.....And 'tis a shame he cannot sue Rudolf for slander.

Norma
10-02-2003, 04:43 PM
The interview with Kathleen's sister today was great - too bad they couldn't get Peterson's history of beating on Kathleen into the testimony.

Would someone please explain to me just what the hell is a blow poke?? Does it have a special function, other than a fireplace poker? I've never heard this term before, yet now I can see a vast array of them held up in this trial!

tthoman
10-02-2003, 09:34 PM
POOK:

I think it is a poker -Plus......not really sure...but I think you are able to blow through it to kindle the flames as they are dying out...as well as poking the fire.......(Remember, it was stated it was NOT solid brass...but a hollow brass cylinder?)

I wish I had seen what you describe about Kathleen's sister's interview.........Do you meant to tell me that he used to hit her ?????????

sariebell
10-03-2003, 12:17 PM
I saw part of the interview with Kathleen's sister, yesterday, and she seemed very believable and humble. I think Candace was a good witness, but she is so adamant to get her point across, that she gets in the way of the facts. This other sister might have been a better witness, because she merely described her sister's concerns and could not talk about her sister very articulately, because she got upset by it. I think this kind of genuine emotion, without seeming to have an agenda, would have been good testimony for the prosecution.

I just now turned on the tv and heard courttv commentators discussing the inadequacy of Freda Black's closing argument statement. I hate to say this, but I think the prosecution has left a lot to be desired in terms of their management of this case. Yes, they are Southern, but they are from a fairly progressive area with many educated people living there. They can't afford to seem disorganized and make bad decisions in this case. I'll bet the jurors are pretty intelligent individuals who won't let this type of thing go. They seemed to have a really strong case...I believe the evidence points to his guilt. I worry, however, that the prosecution has not demonstrated competence in administering this case evidence to the jury. At this point, I think he'll walk.

I am particularly bothered by the fact that the defense team, MP's brother, and his friend/advocate have not once answered the question as to when, how and by whom the blowpoke was found. This is hinky!! I can't believe the prosecution just lets them waltz in and whip them with it without fighting back!

The defense also argues that Kathleen was okay with the fact that MP did it with young guys. I'd bet she definitely was not okay with that. If she was, why would he sneak around to do it? Although this behavior is not altogether uncommon, they had only been married for 5 years. I know people who have married bisexual partners and have open relationships. And guess what...I know about it. Why does no one else know about this aspect of the relationship if it was totally out in the open and accepted?

The prosecution, to my knowledge, never mentioned the condom and wrappers in the master bedroom. I would mention that!! Someone was doing something sexual in there, and not sitting by the pool like it has been said. Remember, Kathleen fell down the stairs, not up. She may have been walking down instead of up the stairs when this occurred. The prosecution just did not mention these things clearly, in my opinion.

In the prosecution closing, it just doesn't seem that either attorney is driving the points home.

I am just sad that someone who more likely than not murdered at least one female is going to get fat on the money from her insurance policy!

Wudge
10-03-2003, 12:19 PM
Originally posted by Pook
The interview with Kathleen's sister today was great - too bad they couldn't get Peterson's history of beating on Kathleen into the testimony.

Would someone please explain to me just what the hell is a blow poke?? Does it have a special function, other than a fireplace poker? I've never heard this term before, yet now I can see a vast array of them held up in this trial!

Pook, a blowpoke has a dual function; it serves to move logs and embers around in the traditional sense of a fireplace poker, yet it is also hollow and acts like a giant straw with a hook at the end. The straw arrangement allows for the user of a blowpoke to blow air/oxygen underneath sparkling embers -- like a billows in a blacksmith shop -- thereby providing them the needed catalyst to turn the embers hotter and, in turn, ignite the logs faster.

In the old days, when you came into a cold house, the idea was to get a fire up and flaming as fast as possiible. It is to that end that a blowpoke best serves its dual purpose.

tthoman
10-03-2003, 01:46 PM
SARIEBELL:

Although they had been married for five years, they had lived together a total of around ten.

I thought the closing arguments of Freda and Mr. Hardin were excellent, each in their own way.

Candace becomes scattered when she talks...she gets so nervous.

I hope he is found guilty.

tsitra01
10-05-2003, 03:37 PM
The clearest evidence to me of MP's guilt was the amount of blood and the extent of her injuries.....and his excuse of lounging by the pool when she fell. It was a very chilly night and he was wearing shorts. That was a bit suspect.

The fact that most of the blood was dry, also very suspicious.
While I think David Rudolf did an excellent job of defending his client, I feel the two similar "accidents" and the enormous amount of blood and injuries will bring a guilty verdict.
Hung jury possible.

tthoman
10-05-2003, 08:19 PM
I hope it's not a hung jury..........

There is so much silliness which flys in the face of common sense that Rudolf wishes the jury to believe.............It's very difficult to swallow a bowling ball!

River
10-05-2003, 09:15 PM
Rudolf is an excellent attorney. He managed to get Rae Carruth convicted of second degree murder, when in actuallity, Rae Carruth should have gotten First Degree Murder with Life in Prison.

As for the Peterson case, there are too many coincidences. Kathleen was murdered.

tthoman
10-05-2003, 11:27 PM
POOK: Yes she was........

I wonder if he has molested the eldest Ratliff daughter.

Toth
10-05-2003, 11:36 PM
Originally posted by tthoman
I wonder if he has molested the eldest Ratliff daughter. I thought his interests lay in other directions.

tthoman
10-05-2003, 11:53 PM
He swings both ways.....

Silver Dollar
10-06-2003, 09:54 AM
Will the juror stay on?

http://www.wral.com/news/2533481/detail.html

Rude dolph wants him!

sariebell
10-07-2003, 12:38 PM
VERDICT WATCH!!!!
So, we dismissed 2 more jurors yesterday??? They are dropping like flies. I didn't even get to hear about the female bank worker who mocked MP. It just gets curiouser and curiouser...

tthoman
10-07-2003, 01:15 PM
SARIEBELL:

I didn't get to see it yesterday ........Nothing in my morning news e-mail from the News/Observer either. What did you hear?

Cypros
10-10-2003, 12:06 PM
It is being read RIGHT NOW

Cypros
10-10-2003, 12:06 PM
GUILTY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Cypros
10-10-2003, 12:07 PM
The Guilty verdict is being read NOW on Court TV

Cypros
10-10-2003, 12:09 PM
The two adopted daughters are in tears. Michael Peterson is sitting there with no emotion on his face. He knows he deserves this verdict.

Jeana (DP)
10-10-2003, 12:11 PM
WOW!! I'm shocked!

Cypros
10-10-2003, 12:12 PM
After the verdict was read -- guilty of 1st degree murder -- Peterson was asked if he wished to say anything. He turned around and nodded to his children and seemed to be telling them that it was "okay".

Cypros
10-10-2003, 12:13 PM
I feel so sorry for the adopted girls -- Margaret and Martha. They have now lost THREE parents. What a horrible thing to go through. They obviously have trusted and loved this man. Poor things.

Peterson was sentenced to life in prison without opportunity for parole. How did the sentencing happen so fast??

The prosecution says that of course it will appeal.

Cypros
10-10-2003, 12:16 PM
A thread has been started on the Trials Forum

Cypros
10-10-2003, 12:20 PM
Jeana, are you shocked that the jury wasn't hung or because you think he didn't do it?

Cypros
10-10-2003, 12:31 PM
Apparently word around town was that people feared there would not be a guilty verdict because they did not believe the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. Obviously, the jury thought otherwise. The reporter was saying that the most compelling evidence for her was the amount of blood -- not consistent with a fall down the stairs -- the blood UP Peterson's shorts which meant he had to have been standing over her when it was splattering, and the lack of blood in her mouth which contradicts Henry Lee's theory that she was coughing up a lot of blood. I am eager to hear what the jury has to say.


I am sooooo happy to know that Lee's ridiculous theory was not accepted. This gives me hope for Scott Peterson's future trial. Geragos must be quivering in his shorts right now...:banghead:

Jeana (DP)
10-10-2003, 12:36 PM
Originally posted by Cypros
Jeana, are you shocked that the jury wasn't hung or because you think he didn't do it?

I think he probably did do it, but there were some problems with the trial. Don't get me wrong, I think he's a first class creep, but I was surprised at the verdict!

Silver Dollar
10-10-2003, 12:40 PM
Great! I had been praying for justice, whichever it went. I feel he is guilty of 3 murders - Kathleen, Elizabeth and George.

Doyle
10-10-2003, 12:44 PM
from courttv.com
http://www.courttv.com/trials/novelist/guilty_ctv.html

I am really surprised he was convicted... I also felt he was guilty, but thought he would get off.

Casshew
10-10-2003, 12:45 PM
I am glad he was found guilty... when I heard about his "last wife" who died pretty well the same way. :rolleyes:

Also what kind a guy surfs the net to set up dates for anal sex at 150.00 an hour and then claims to have a great marriage? I wonder how long that stuff was going on?

Cass...

Cypros
10-10-2003, 12:48 PM
I think it is important that the prosecution was able to get a guilty verdict WITHOUT a known weapon. They had theorized about a missing blowpoke, but then the blowpoke turned up during the trial and that had to be disregarded. I guess the jury didn't care WHAT he killed her with.

Again, this gives me hope regarding Scott Peterson's case as no cause of death has yet been determined.

Jeana, IMO the blood evidence was compelling, plus the fact that the same thing had happened to Elizabeth Ratliff 18 years ago. too much coincidence,

MrsMush99
10-10-2003, 12:51 PM
I cannot believe it! I totally forgot that they were on verdict watch! I'm surprised that he was found guilty. I think he did it. Just surprised that he was found guilty.

Cypros
10-10-2003, 12:57 PM
Originally posted by Casshew
Also what kind a guy surfs the net to set up dates for anal sex at 150.00 an hour and then claims to have a great marriage? I wonder how long that stuff was going on?

Cass...

The same kind of guy who has affairs and then claims that his marriage is "glorious"?!:dontknow:

sariebell
10-10-2003, 12:59 PM
I am glad that the jury could see past the blunders of the prosecution and stay focused on the evidence. Apparently the kicker was the visit to the residence to see the stairwell. The jurors seemed to think there was just way too much blood and it was so high up on the wall. I guess that was a defensive backfire!

Rudolph did an outstanding job, and the prosecution left much to be desired. I believe he did it. The nurses on the jury and the rest of the jurors used logic and paid attention to the evidence. I am glad that justice was served.

magpie
10-10-2003, 01:02 PM
Yep, this is a just verdict. It gives me hope too for Sp's trial, this jury didn't buy Henry Lee's "show" that he put on in the courtroom. I think Mr. Lee has damaged his credibility. I'm kind of thinking Geragos won't put him on in SP's trial, think I read that Lee's findings didn't jive with MG's theory anyway.

I think not only did he kill his wife Kathleen, but he killed E. Ratliff in Germany also. It is suspicious about George Ratliff, but I don't know much about George's death.

Glad the jury was able to reach a decision. Life without the possibility of parole!

magpie

nanandjim
10-10-2003, 01:05 PM
Originally posted by Cypros
The Guilty verdict is being read NOW on Court TV
FANTASTIC!! I knew he did it!! I think that he killed that other woman too.

Jeana (DP)
10-10-2003, 01:06 PM
I agree the blood evidence was compelling. I don't know anything about this sort of thing, but even I thought the blood was too high up on the stairs.

As for the sentence, the jury had no discretion on it. But I'm glad he's in for life.

nanandjim
10-10-2003, 01:09 PM
One (Peterson) down; one to go. This guy was as guilty as sin. I believe his wife wanted a divorce from this free loader, so he killed her. Hell, this guy wouldn't even buy her a headstone for her grave even though he had life insurance worth millions. What a great guy...

Artemis
10-10-2003, 01:10 PM
I'm from NC (not far from Raleigh/Durham) - I was so afraid that the verdict would be NG as we have been hearing (locally) that the DA did not prove reasonalble doubt.

I do feel sorry for Liz Ratliff's girls, though but I do feel that in this case, lightning did strike twice!

packerdog
10-10-2003, 01:20 PM
I am so glad he was found guilty. I have been following this case on court tv from the beginning and I have to admit I was a little nervous when they went for all or nothing, 1st degree murder.

Cypros
10-10-2003, 01:30 PM
Peterson's lawyer is being interviewed on Court TV right now. He seems to think that bringing the "missing" blowpoke into the court should have created enough reasonable doubt for the jury. He also thinks that the jury was heavily swayed by the repeated references to Peterson's "alernative" lifestyle during the closing arguments. I am willing to bet that the jury will say this played no part in their decision -- other than maybe to show that Peterson was looking elsewhere for sexual pleasure -- and that the blood and other forensics were key for them.

Casshew
10-10-2003, 01:35 PM
Well at least Peterson will get his anal sex for free now :p

Cass...

Cypros
10-10-2003, 01:41 PM
Yeah, Cass! He may have been hoping for a guilty plea! He won't have to pay for his lovers now. :blowkiss:

MidnightMyst
10-10-2003, 01:42 PM
:laugh:


Originally posted by Casshew
Well at least Peterson will get his anal sex for free now :p

Cass...

less0305
10-10-2003, 01:45 PM
I absolutely loved it that they disproved Dr. Henri Lee's testimony that the blood in the stairway could have come from Mrs. Peterson "coughing up" blood!!!! That just proved he was testifying solely for the purpose of $$$ and would say anything that side wanted him to say - or paid him to say. I certainly hope if he comes up with some half-baked theory in the Laci Peterson case, he will be shot down just as effectively!!!!

patsy
10-10-2003, 02:08 PM
I didn't know about the Henry Lee testimony--that's interesting. He has the reputation of being above that sort of thing, and yet I notice he's always available to any defense team as an expert witness for the right money. This just sort of proves that, since he should have (and no doubt did) know better! I hope he doesn't pull that sort of thing in the Scott Peterson case. It confuses jurors and could easily affect the verdict! It's shameful, IMO. :mad:

patsy

packerdog
10-10-2003, 02:47 PM
Henery Lee said during this trial that he MIGHT be testifing in the Scott Peterson trial. Does this mean MG isn't sure if Henry Lee will help the defense with his testimony, or the prosecution?

browneyed2
10-10-2003, 03:02 PM
So interesting to see another such grisly true story about a family named Peterson.

hockeymom
10-10-2003, 03:07 PM
Watch out Scott,your turn next!!

Wudge
10-10-2003, 03:08 PM
This was, by far, the most stunningly unskilled decision I have ever witnessed, a new level of jury incompetence was reached with this verdict. Their decision begs for the need for professional jurors.

Casshew
10-10-2003, 03:21 PM
Wudge.. what did you think of the OJ Simpson Jury/verdict?

Cass...

Ntegrity
10-10-2003, 04:18 PM
Originally posted by Wudge
This was, by far, the most stunningly unskilled decision I have ever witnessed, a new level of jury incompetence was reached with this verdict. Their decision begs for the need for professional jurors.
Exactly the response I expected from you, Wudge :razz: Your idea of justice seems to be that all murderers go free. Well, thank God these jurors were able to look at the evidence and render justice for a victim who wasn't able to speak for herself. Er ... make that two victims!!

Wudge
10-10-2003, 04:32 PM
Originally posted by Ntegrity
Exactly the response I expected from you, Wudge :razz: Your idea of justice seems to be that all murderers go free. Well, thank God these jurors were able to look at the evidence and render justice for a victim who wasn't able to speak for herself. Er ... make that two victims!!

ntegrity...the jurors found premeditation existed without even a clear, much less a compelling, motive, without a murder weapon and without even a clear murder scene. Both of which is true for the death of Mrs. Ratliff as well. This was a stunning display of reasoning from the point of view of guilty versus reasoning the evidence to see if it took them over the reasonable doubt hurdle. It went far beyond gross jury incompetence; this was obscene jury incompetence.

Lilybug1
10-10-2003, 04:32 PM
I was so happy when I heard this news. I think they had a lot less on on this Peterson than Scott and a lot of similarities. Michael Peterson had online conversations, but no proof of actual affair (like Scott Peterson). They both had insurance policies on the wives. But Michael Peterson wasn't as dumb as Scott to say those ridiculous, transparent lies on national television time and time again. I can't wait for Scott's trial. I am so curious what the police have and what ridiculousness the defense will come up with.

Casshew
10-10-2003, 04:36 PM
Originally posted by Wudge
and without even a clear murder scene.

Wudge.. did you think all that red stuff was paint?

By the way - you didn't answer my question about OJ

Cass...

Toth
10-10-2003, 04:40 PM
Does this mean he won't have a third woman who falls down a flight of stairs?

Wudge
10-10-2003, 05:19 PM
Originally posted by Casshew
Wudge.. did you think all that red stuff was paint?

By the way - you didn't answer my question about OJ

Cass...

Casshew.. She died of bleed out; blood, en masse, means nothing as far as evidence, and reasonable doubt is all about evidence.

I have often spoke of the OJ verdict , and my stance has always been that LAPD framed a guilty man.

Given that: EDTA was found in several of the blood evidence samples, perjury by a detective, the juries make-up and the infamous glove, then the verdict was understandable and expected.

I have never said a courtroom is a place where you will find justice or truth.

Ntegrity
10-10-2003, 05:20 PM
Does this mean he won't have a third woman who falls down a flight of stairs?

Only if the Wudges of the world have their way.

Casshew
10-10-2003, 05:25 PM
Originally posted by Wudge
I have often spoke of the OJ verdict , and my stance has always been that LAPD framed a guilty man.



Interesting wudge, does this mean (to you) that justice was served? or should a guilty man be aquitted because of questionable police practices?

Cass...

Wudge
10-10-2003, 05:42 PM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Casshew
Interesting wudge, does this mean (to you) that justice was served? or should a guilty man be aquitted because of questionable police practices?

Cass... [/QUOTE

Casshew ....I repeat, a courtroom was never designed to be a place for truth or justice; it was only designed to have a vedict rendeded via a process that is supposed to reason from the available, and non poisoned, evidence to the standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

philamena
10-10-2003, 05:56 PM
THANK GOODNESS.....JUSTICE WAS SERVED....


WUDGE---did you hear the verdict? ;)

Grace
10-10-2003, 06:02 PM
Originally posted by Cypros
Apparently word around town was that people feared there would not be a guilty verdict because they did not believe the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.

Cypros,

I have also heard that, one of the local news stations interviewed an alternate juror several days ago to get her opinion of how the jury would rule. She thought he was guilty but did not believe the jury would come to that decision.

I think he is guilty and feel the jury made the right decision based on evidence and common sense. I feel terrible for the family, it's heartbreaking to see their pain.

Jeana (DP)
10-10-2003, 06:29 PM
Originally posted by Casshew
Interesting wudge, does this mean (to you) that justice was served? or should a guilty man be aquitted because of questionable police practices?

Cass...

Um, in a word - yes. If there's reasonable doubt - no matter how that reasonable doubt was set in play, the jury has to render a not guilty verdict. Now, do they always do this? No. However, that's an error on their part.

jlock
10-10-2003, 06:45 PM
I believe that Dr. Henri Lee lost all credibility after the O J Simpson trial

Wudge
10-10-2003, 06:47 PM
Originally posted by Grace
Cypros,

I have also heard that, one of the local news stations interviewed an alternate juror several days ago to get her opinion of how the jury would rule. She thought he was guilty but did not believe the jury would come to that decision.

I think he is guilty and feel the jury made the right decision based on evidence and common sense. I feel terrible for the family, it's heartbreaking to see their pain.

Grace...cite the evidence that proved premeditation?

Cypros
10-10-2003, 06:50 PM
Originally posted by Grace
Cypros,

I have also heard that, one of the local news stations interviewed an alternate juror several days ago to get her opinion of how the jury would rule. She thought he was guilty but did not believe the jury would come to that decision.


I heard that too. I am glad that the jury took their time to go over all of the evidence and came to a logical conclusion.

I don't think that showing up with three blow pokes claimed to have been in the house all along provides REASONABLE doubt.

poco
10-10-2003, 07:14 PM
Thanks for the update; haven't had TV on all day. And, yes, I believe he killed his other wife, too.

tthoman
10-10-2003, 07:19 PM
FANTASTIC!!!!!!!!!! Am so glad justice was done and am so happy for Kathleen and her family.....What a senseless, devious, and brutal way to die....

I wish I could have seen it all today on CTV......

Tragic for those Ratliff girls, but sooner or later, they would have had to face the truth, as MP is a serial murderer....

A victory for their mother, (AND their father, Captain Ratliff, who loved his wife so much......) as MP took FULL advantage of Elizabeth's helpless situation after Captain Ratliff's untimely death.......

I have read that the German authorities have re-opened Elizabeth Ratliff's case.......Let's hope so!

This is a victory for Caitlin, as well. .......And God bless the Prosecutorial Team!

Cypros
10-10-2003, 07:33 PM
Wudge, the prosecution claims that there were two beatings. There is blood splatter on top of blood that had been wiped up. They argue that he beat her, attempted to clean up the blood, then he beat at her again -- perhaps she moaned or made an effort to get up and he made sure that she would never do anything again. Whatever you want to think of the initial beating, that second beating falls under premeditation.

philamena
10-10-2003, 07:34 PM
Best news I' ve heard all day!

Justice is served!

Wudge--just think,you will hear another guilty verdict at the SP trial in a year or so. ;)

Wudge
10-10-2003, 07:38 PM
Originally posted by Cypros
Wudge, the prosecution claims that there were two beatings. There is blood splatter on top of blood that had been wiped up. They argue that he beat her, attempted to clean up the blood, then he beat at her again -- perhaps she moaned or made an effort to get up and he made sure that she would never do anything again. Whatever you want to think of the initial beating, that second beating falls under premeditation.

Cypros, they never proved two beatings or even one. Those bozos could not even produce a murder weapon. The whole case and verdict was reasoned from a fantasyland dreamscape.

Cypros
10-10-2003, 07:45 PM
Well, Wudge, they may not have proved it to you, but they proved it to many others, including the very important jury panel.

Wudge
10-10-2003, 07:59 PM
Originally posted by Cypros
Well, Wudge, they may not have proved it to you, but they proved it to many others, including the very important jury panel.

Cypros, yes, sadly true. This verdict represents the reason why I want to give a defendant the choice of having a jury composed of professional jurors who have proven intellectual and reasoning skills or selecting their jury from a pool of lay people as in this trial.

philamena
10-10-2003, 08:02 PM
Poco,
you siggy line is really something.

boody
10-10-2003, 08:02 PM
I heard something from the lead detective today on CTV. He said M. Peterson continued to live in the house & NEVER did clean up all the blood. Now that's creepy.

Cypros
10-10-2003, 08:02 PM
Well, the law states that Michael Peterson should be tried by a jury of his PEERS. There is nothing to indicate that a jury composed of people with "proven intellectual and reasoning skills" could be considered as PEERS to Michael Peterson -- nor to the majority of murderers out there.

chicoliving
10-10-2003, 08:02 PM
I'm so thankful the jury used common sense. Fingers crossed that the jury for the next Peterson case can do the same!

Justice was done today for Kathleen. May we have justice for Laci sooner than later. IMO

tthoman
10-10-2003, 08:21 PM
WUDGE: GIVE UP ON THIS ONE!

Wudge
10-10-2003, 08:29 PM
Originally posted by tthoman
WUDGE: GIVE UP ON THIS ONE!

No thanks, I like my position that this verdict represents obscene incompetence, because it does.

philamena
10-10-2003, 08:41 PM
wudge,
why are you ignoring the evidence that was persented in court?

Do you really believe she died from a bleed? Peterson hit her in the head.The blood splatters on the wall were over 24".
Come on....

Cypros
10-10-2003, 08:44 PM
Originally posted by Wudge
I like my position that this verdict represents obscene incompetence, because it does.

Thus Peterson had the perfect jury of his peers! The crime scene suggests the obscene incompetence of a man trying to pass his wife's murder off as an accident.

Wudge, did you really buy into that ridiculous defense story that Kathleen Peterson fatally injured herself -- with multiple lacerations to the back of her head, and her hair pulled out by her own hands, and blood splattered everywhere (including UP her husband's shorts), and his footprints on her back -- as an accidental fall down a few steps? Now THAT is incompetent thinking!

Wudge
10-10-2003, 09:08 PM
Originally posted by Cypros
Thus Peterson had the perfect jury of his peers! The crime scene suggests the obscene incompetence of a man trying to pass his wife's murder off as an accident.

Wudge, did you really buy into that ridiculous defense story that Kathleen Peterson fatally injured herself -- with multiple lacerations to the back of her head, and her hair pulled out by her own hands, and blood splattered everywhere (including UP her husband's shorts), and his footprints on her back -- as an accidental fall down a few steps? Now THAT is incompetent thinking!

Cypros... you are begging the question, which in circumstantial evidence cases is the supreme flaw. Obviously. you do not understand the burden of proof that is required in circumstantial evidence cases. And, in my mind, this jury did not have the intellectual capacity necessary to apply those standards, which say that each fact which is essential to complete a set of circumstances necessary to establish the defendant's guilt must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. In other words, before an inference essential to establish guilt may be found to have been proved beyond a reasonable doubt, each fact or circumstances upon which the inference necessarily rests must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

Also, if the circumstantial evidence as to any particular count permits two reasonable interpretations, one of which points to he defendant's guilt and the other to his innocence, you must adopt that interpretation which points to the defendant's innocence and reject that interpretation which points to his guilt.

Even worse, the mere fact the jury thought they might be able to use the prosecutor's opening statement as evidence proves the jury, in its entirety, did not even understand what constitutes evidence.

Cypros
10-10-2003, 09:17 PM
I'm not begging the question, Wudge, just playing with you. The jury has spoken -- Michael Peterson was found guilty -- apparently in their minds there was only one reasonable explanation. I certainly didn't see any evidence of any other reasonable explanation for what happened to Kathleen Peterson. Did you?

tthoman
10-10-2003, 09:28 PM
WUDGE:

You got to know when to hold 'em and know when to fold 'em..........you are TOO SMART to stubbornly hang on like this when we all know he did it!!

Wudge
10-10-2003, 09:31 PM
Originally posted by Cypros
I'm not begging the question, Wudge, just playing with you. The jury has spoken -- Michael Peterson was found guilty -- apparently in their minds there was only one reasonable explanation. I certainly didn't see any evidence of any other reasonable explanation for what happened to Kathleen Peterson. Did you?

The choices were murder or accident; it is that simple. And to convict him, the jury had to reason that it could not have been an accident. For if it could have been an accident, then reasonable doubt obviously applys. It is that basic.

tthoman
10-10-2003, 09:32 PM
Dr. Lee USED to be above reproach concerning $$$$$$.....but things have changed....OR have become visible? I no longer value his opinion.

His "defenses" of MP were pathetic.

Runningwild
10-10-2003, 09:35 PM
Originally posted by chicoliving
I'm so thankful the jury used common sense. Fingers crossed that the jury for the next Peterson case can do the same!

Justice was done today for Kathleen. May we have justice for Laci sooner than later. IMO I couldn't agree more. I was a little worried that he would get off on a technicality of some sort. I'm glad he was found guilty:bigthumb:

Wudge
10-10-2003, 09:36 PM
Originally posted by tthoman
WUDGE:

You got to know when to hold 'em and know when to fold 'em..........you are TOO SMART to stubbornly hang on like this when we all know he did it!!

That is what I heard for years about Sam Sheppard.

Cypros
10-10-2003, 09:39 PM
Originally posted by Wudge
... to convict him, the jury had to reason that it could not have been an accident. For if it could have been an accident, then reasonable doubt obviously applys.

So, what's your point? The jury concluded that the injuries sustained by the victim and the other circumstances surrounding her death indicate that it could not have been an accident. Seems logical -- and simple -- to me.

tthoman
10-10-2003, 09:44 PM
JUSTICE WAS DEFINITELY SERVED! What a relief!

tthoman
10-10-2003, 09:51 PM
DEAR SMART AND VERY WISE WUDGE:

MP IS NOT SAM!!!!!!!!!! MP DID THE DEEDS! I know it is hard to accept....but it is the truth.....

Wudge
10-10-2003, 09:51 PM
Originally posted by Cypros
So, what's your point? The jury concluded that the injuries sustained by the victim and the other circumstances surrounding her death indicate that it could not have been an accident. Seems logical -- and simple -- to me.

Cypros... It is insane to think that Kathleen Peterson who had been suffering severe headaches and who had fallen before and who had recently lost her vision and who had taken valium and alcohol that very night could not have fallen, gotten up and refallen. And if you want to say otherwise, you better have something more than rank speculation.

Cypros
10-10-2003, 09:54 PM
Is that a threat?

Wudge
10-10-2003, 09:59 PM
Originally posted by tthoman
DEAR SMART AND VERY WISE WUDGE:

MP IS NOT SAM!!!!!!!!!! MP DID THE DEEDS! I know it is hard to accept....but it is the truth.....

TThoman... I never pretend I can divine whether someone did "it" or not, I only assess the evidence to see if the Not Guilty presumption holds when measured against the reasonable doubt standard.

River
10-10-2003, 10:01 PM
John Douglas and Henry Lee are both following the money. Douglas sells his expert opinion for whoever buys it; he took Lee's lead.

And, I agree that Lee lost all crediblity at the Simpson trial. I'll NEVER forget what he said to Marsha Clark etal in the hallway: "see, I give a little to you and a little to them. It all works out."

I'm stunned that Peterson was found guilty. The prosecutor had the guts to take this on. I owe the guy an apology, I figured that he'd have lost this case due to the over charge.

Wudge
10-10-2003, 10:01 PM
Originally posted by Cypros
Is that a threat?

Cypros...you need some time off..lol

River
10-10-2003, 10:06 PM
Wudge! Seriously, do you think that the 12 people on the Jury are less qualified than you? They sat there during the ENTIRE trial and listened to every bit of evidence. They watched Peterson, etal. Do you ever think that anyone is guilty? Just curious. :waitasec:

I'm just glad he's convicted. I really thought he'd get off.

Wudge
10-10-2003, 10:12 PM
Originally posted by River
Wudge! Seriously, do you think that the 12 people on the Jury are less qualified that you? They sat there during the ENTIRE trial and listened to every bit of evidence. They watched Peterson, etal.

I'm just glad he's convicted. I really thought he'd get off.

River... I absolutely do. I watched this trial daily. And I lived in Raleigh previously , and I know the area well and, sadly, this jury lacked basic reasoning skills and suffered an intellectual capacity overload.

Wudge
10-10-2003, 10:24 PM
Originally posted by River
Wudge! Seriously, do you think that the 12 people on the Jury are less qualified than you? They sat there during the ENTIRE trial and listened to every bit of evidence. They watched Peterson, etal. Do you ever think that anyone is guilty? Just curious. :waitasec:

I'm just glad he's convicted. I really thought he'd get off.

River, I split this reply because I thought it best I do so. When you say you thought he would get off, but you are glad he is convicted, it not only sounds poor, but, to me, that means you had conflict, which, in turn, means reasonable doubt.

As for "Guilty" people, of course. However, this trial was a true travesty regarding our American jurisprudence concept of reasonable doubt.

Now, if you will go back in this forum, you will find how I have called other trials, and you will also see how I measure Kobe's case.

tthoman
10-10-2003, 10:47 PM
WUDGE: I know you are a very intelligent and a very thoughtful person......but I am too.

Are you allowing any hostilities for North Carolinians to cloud your objectivity?

Wudge
10-10-2003, 11:12 PM
Originally posted by tthoman
WUDGE: I know you are a very intelligent and a very thoughtful person......but I am too.

Are you allowing any hostilities for North Carolinians to cloud your objectivity?

TThoman...I know you are intelligent.

Nonetheless, this was a savagely offensive verdict to people who truly place the reasonable doubt standard on high ground.

As for your question, nope, not at all, there are some wonderful people there. However, there are a good number of people you would never ever want to see in the jury box, and, in some locales, there are a ton of such people. And, again, in some locales, there are a lot of people who have severe class and race bias -- along with some very old scores they would like to settle.

It's just the way it is.

If it were me, I would never want to be on trial in Durham,NC, it is very different than Raleigh or Wake Forest in its make-up. And, no matter where I might be, I would always choose a professional jury if I had that option, always. .

tthoman
10-10-2003, 11:19 PM
I know what you are saying Wudge, but I honestly think that today, justice was served....pure and simple....and actually, justice is truth. That is the way I see it, Wudgkins!

Jessica
10-10-2003, 11:25 PM
So glad the jury did not buy into the weak defense arguments. Apparently the jury looked at the lacerations and blood spatter. I hope some of the jurors speak about their deliberations.

chiperoni
10-11-2003, 12:09 AM
river you are incredible. I love your posts.

chiperoni
10-11-2003, 12:48 AM
wudge, I think you would vote not guilty if the accused sent you a formal invitation to witness the murder. We're talking about REASONABLE doubt.

Silver Dollar
10-11-2003, 08:24 AM
Whoope! One down and two to go. Elizabeth and George need justice too.

Wanna take a tour of Central Prison?
http://www.doc.state.nc.us/dop/CPtour/index.htm

One link on this site does not work; titled "Through the gate". Just click on the others instead.
His lifestyle has changed overnight, plus he will have to work. Can you see him actually working? This time, he has no choice.


"Hey, Inmate Peterson, remop that hall, you missed a spot!"

TallCoolOne
10-11-2003, 10:22 AM
Originally posted by tthoman
Dr. Lee USED to be above reproach concerning $$$$$$.....but things have changed....OR have become visible? I no longer value his opinion.

His "defenses" of MP were pathetic.

I agree. I think Lee has become somewhat of a trial whore.

Cypros
10-11-2003, 10:27 AM
Wudge: You are confusing REASONABLE DOUBT with WITHOUT A SHADOW OF A DOUBT. There was no room for REASONABLE doubt in the conviction of Michael Peterson.

Wudge
10-11-2003, 11:31 AM
Originally posted by Cypros
Wudge: You are confusing REASONABLE DOUBT with WITHOUT A SHADOW OF A DOUBT. There was no room for REASONABLE doubt in the conviction of Michael Peterson.

Cypros...you arguing with me on what reasonable doubt legally represents =- chuckle

tthoman
10-11-2003, 02:24 PM
TALL COOL ONE: Well put!

RIVER: I did not know Lee had said that to Marsha. That's disgusting.

tthoman
10-11-2003, 02:46 PM
Many interesting articles on Page one of today's News/ Observer from Raleigh..
Here is one:
http://newsobserver.com/front/story/2939833p-2696768c.html

tthoman
10-12-2003, 01:14 PM
Another great Peterson article from Sunday's News and Observer:

http://newsobserver.com/front/story/2943216p-2698844c.html

Granny Magic
10-12-2003, 09:45 PM
Thank goodness!

Heard rather than watched most of this.

It seemed laughable that that amount of blood would have saturated the area it did from a "fall". Looks like the jury had common sense.

I couldn't watch the convicted murderer. He creeped me out. Not only the murder, but the dyed hair, that "look" on his face during trial.

Just desserts.

Babcat
10-13-2003, 03:17 AM
Elizabeth Ratliff, was not Michael Peterson's wife. She was a family friend. I believe he killed her because he was obsessed with her. Once her husband had died and she was a widow I think Peterson thought she would come running into his arms and that didn't happen. I believe he tried something with her the night she died and she totally rejected him so he killed her. Kathleen Peterson looked so much like Liz Ratliff and absolutely NOTHING like Peterson's first wife that I really think he was trying to replace Liz with Kathleen. I think the night she died she too rejected him by telling him she had found out about his little bi sexual trists. She told him to pack his bags and get a job because she wasn't supporting his lying ass anymore. I think that is when he attacked her.

tthoman
10-13-2003, 02:18 PM
That's exactly how I see it also.......did you read the articles on the links I gave in the other thread? After you access the link (if it's still viable) you are able to read the other articles on the front pages which reveal more...He had a HAIR-TRIGGER temper.

Silver Dollar
11-06-2003, 01:07 PM
Judge Hudson rules for Peterson:

http://www.herald-sun.com/durham/4-410032.html

Jeana (DP)
11-06-2003, 01:57 PM
If his appeal is going to rest on an attorney whose only being paid $65 per hour to represent him, either he'd better pray someone wants to do it for free publicity or just pray. He's seriously screwed otherwise. Around here, we charge more than that per hour for legal assistant time.

Silver Dollar
11-06-2003, 03:21 PM
Originally posted by tthoman


There is so much silliness which flys in the face of common sense that Rudolf wishes the jury to believe.............It's very difficult to swallow a bowling ball!



:D

Casshew
12-15-2003, 01:35 PM
This theory is for the birds!!!

===snip===
A close examination of autopsy photos shows that some of the gashes on the body of Kathleen Peterson clearly resemble talon marks. They also cite research indicating that owl attacks are far from unprecedented in the United States.
===snip===

http://heraldsun.com/state/6-424445.html

alpharee
12-15-2003, 01:54 PM
Boy people will say anything to stay out of the big house!
Owls, Satanics Cults, Dirty Men in Vans :D
jeez.....

Casshew
12-15-2003, 04:53 PM
bump coz this needs to be read LOL

Toth
12-15-2003, 05:31 PM
I wonder how many owls, which are ofcourse nocturnal creatures, were found wandering around the basement of the house when the cops got there?
I also wonder just how ambitious that owl must have been?
An owl trying to eat a mouse,,, sure. But did that owl really plan to sink its talons into a full grown human and carry it back to its nest? Some owl!!

LinnieB
12-15-2003, 06:06 PM
I heard this on the radio the other day and seriously didn't believe it ! It is soooo far out there. :doh: :loser:

Casshew
12-15-2003, 06:13 PM
Give a hoot, don't pollute.

Remember that owl? LOL

Yakwoman
12-16-2003, 10:31 AM
Originally posted by Toth
I wonder how many owls, which are ofcourse nocturnal creatures, were found wandering around the basement of the house when the cops got there?
I also wonder just how ambitious that owl must have been?
An owl trying to eat a mouse,,, sure. But did that owl really plan to sink its talons into a full grown human and carry it back to its nest? Some owl!!

LOL, Toth - it must have been the owl from hell!:evil:

less0305
12-16-2003, 01:01 PM
Papers reporting that Michael Peterson's two best friends want judge to allow exumation of Kathleen's body to prove that she was killed by an.......owl......yep, a barn owl.!!!!!!!! They want to prove the marks on Kathleen's body are from talons. Have you ever heard anything so ludicrous in your life???

kato
12-16-2003, 01:08 PM
Oh boy! Don't that beat all.

Casshew
12-16-2003, 08:30 PM
You think there would be owl poop around :dontknow:

Yakwoman
12-16-2003, 11:27 PM
Originally posted by Casshew
You think there would be owl poop around :dontknow:

Yeah.....BIG owl poopie - the kind you get on your shoes.....:)

katiecoolady
08-31-2005, 12:34 AM
Michael Peterson's sister speaks out about his guilt:

www.justicemag.com

JBean
08-31-2005, 01:00 AM
Michael Peterson's sister speaks out about his guilt:

www.justicemag.com (http://www.justicemag.com/)Oh wow! Thanks Katie..I'm going to take some time and read it. Looks great.
Gorgeous picture of you :D



ETA: oh that was quite a read Katie. Excellent.

SanQuentinvisitor
08-31-2005, 02:02 AM
Thank you for sharing this, Katiecoolady!!!


I know that most people cannot imagine that their brother or son or father could be a cold-blooded murderer. But every murderer has sisters and brothers and mothers and fathers. After all, what does a murderer look like?

WOW.....I know exactly how she feels. :(

Schmerty_Jones
08-31-2005, 02:16 AM
WOW! Katie thanks for sharing this!. You ARE SO COOL! You write so well :blowkiss:

EasyGruuvin
08-31-2005, 02:27 AM
Thank you Katie...good read...great picture!

katiecoolady
08-31-2005, 09:51 AM
Thank you for sharing this, Katiecoolady!!!


WOW.....I know exactly how she feels. :(
Wow...don't you ever SQV. I bet you could tell your own similar story. Mind if I pass along your post to Ann?

noorbe
08-31-2005, 10:05 AM
You look great Katie.

Thank you so much for sharing this with us.
I also have followed this trail on TV, and have seen the documentary on tv, and have read 2 books about this case.
I'm printing the story right now.
So interesting to hear from his sister.
I feel the pain for the family members, they suffer so much, and it's not in their control, what other family members do.
I can relate, in some degree.
Thank you again:blowkiss:

robinparten
08-31-2005, 12:24 PM
Great article, I really admire Ann - what an ordeal for her.


Thanks for sharing!

nanandjim
08-31-2005, 12:35 PM
Great article, I really admire Ann - what an ordeal for her...

I agree. It must have taken a lot of courage to be so honest.

SanQuentinvisitor
08-31-2005, 01:46 PM
Wow...don't you ever SQV. I bet you could tell your own similar story. Mind if I pass along your post to Ann?

No, not at all. Not that I said anything profound though......

If you could just tell her that there are lots of us out here that have walk in her shoes and that she is not alone.......We aren't responsible for our relatives choices and they do not define who we are as people.
Her decision to distance herself from him was the right decision for her. It takes as much courage to walk away as it does to stand by them. To do that, you must say goodbye to the person you once knew.....not an easy task when the person you knew was not capable of such horrific acts upon another human being, or so you thought.

I hope she finds peace within herself and feels that the system worked, even if that meant putting her brother behind bars for the remainder of his lifetime.
Also, if you could thank her for telling her story......she reminds the rest of us that we are also not alone....

SQV

Gozgals
08-31-2005, 01:50 PM
Thank you Katiecoolady for this article. What a great picture too!;) ;)

Just the other day I pulled up recent articles on the "Other Michael" and was

reading about him. Glad to see his sister speak out.

You did a wonderful job. I look forward to reading your future peices. I know I will be getting this magazine, just to read your work.

Thank you again.

Gozgals.

lisafremont
08-31-2005, 03:18 PM
Just a terrific read. Thanks so much, Katie!!

Please convey to Ann one more person's respect for her standing up for what is right and true. When just staying silent would have beeneasier in a way, she chose the courageous course. It is admirable.

I do have two questions I must ask. What does she think of "THE STAIR CASE"? And...

In that documentary her brother Bill says that he knew at a young age, and their parents knew of Michael bisexuality. Did Ann know? What does she think of that claim?

Oh, awright, that's three. But I can't help myself!! I am soooo curious!

close_enough
08-31-2005, 05:16 PM
Just a terrific read. Thanks so much, Katie!!

Please convey to Ann one more person's respect for her standing up for what is right and true. When just staying silent would have beeneasier in a way, she chose the courageous course. It is admirable.

I do have two questions I must ask. What does she think of "THE STAIR CASE"? And...

In that documentary her brother Bill says that he knew at a young age, and their parents knew of Michael bisexuality. Did Ann know? What does she think of that claim?

Oh, awright, that's three. But I can't help myself!! I am soooo curious!

from what i read, it sounds like Ann didn't know....how horrible for her to have to realize that "Mike", her wonderful brother, is a cold calculating murderer...

good read...thanks!

creepy how the FIRST thing that popped into her head, when finding out the news, was "that's how his first wife died too"...

concernedperson
08-31-2005, 06:16 PM
No, not at all. Not that I said anything profound though......

If you could just tell her that there are lots of us out here that have walk in her shoes and that she is not alone.......We aren't responsible for our relatives choices and they do not define who we are as people.
Her decision to distance herself from him was the right decision for her. It takes as much courage to walk away as it does to stand by them. To do that, you must say goodbye to the person you once knew.....not an easy task when the person you knew was not capable of such horrific acts upon another human being, or so you thought.

I hope she finds peace within herself and feels that the system worked, even if that meant putting her brother behind bars for the remainder of his lifetime.
Also, if you could thank her for telling her story......she reminds the rest of us that we are also not alone....

SQV

Bravo! Too difficult for the family members that are not in denial. We have to face it after much soul searching and walking away isn't easy, but necessary.Between Katrina and my other siblings just realizing what is going on with my brother I haven't had much sleep in days. That case was so importent for people looking at linkage.There is always a sign if you look for it.

katiecoolady
08-31-2005, 11:01 PM
Thanks guys for giving this a read. I'm telling Ann about the feedback which makes her feel even better for telling her story...feeling like it's really making a difference.

No, she had no idea Mike was bisexual. It was MY impression (not speaking for her now) that she believed no one in the family knew until after Kathleen's murder, although they tried to play it as known for some time. I don't believe it was.

The conspiracy to exonerate a guilty man is astounding. I suspect it is very similar to what occured in the *other* Peterson family dynamic after he murdered Laci.

I have also become aware that the family who did support him during the trial were not pleased with the performance of David Rudolf, who took a clean million from them. In my own calculations I suspect MP's brother Bill is out about half a million himself alone. Wonder how his family feels about that..him approaching retirement age and all. Sadly, for everyone involved (MP's other economic victims), he could have fared better with a public defender. Rudolf's egomaniacal ways involved serious errors in judgment which assisted the conviction,in my opinion.

Raises alot of questions doesn't it?

Stay tuned....there may be more stories in my column which involve this case and family.

Thanks for taking the time to read! :D

katiecoolady
08-31-2005, 11:06 PM
Just a terrific read. Thanks so much, Katie!!

Please convey to Ann one more person's respect for her standing up for what is right and true. When just staying silent would have beeneasier in a way, she chose the courageous course. It is admirable.

I do have two questions I must ask. What does she think of "THE STAIR CASE"? And...

In that documentary her brother Bill says that he knew at a young age, and their parents knew of Michael bisexuality. Did Ann know? What does she think of that claim?

Oh, awright, that's three. But I can't help myself!! I am soooo curious! Oh,just saw this other question lisa. Ann bought the DVD of The STaircase. Of course we've dissected it ad nauseum. I've also watched it over and over. She has similar impressions as I do...it's very biased yet very revealing. It's fascinating and emotion filled I'm sure for her watching her family like that. I don't think she regrets for one second not being there in that film. She made the right call.

I got inspired today to try to set up some kind of "live chat" situation with her for people to ask her questions like on the live chats on CTV...moderated. I don't know if it will materialize but I think her piece generated as many questions as answers. She had to really limit herself.

HappyCamper
09-02-2005, 04:35 AM
What courage Ann has ~ to not only lose her brother ~ but also her whole family ~ because she wanted to know and then chose to accept the truth.

Please thank Ann for the letter ~

And please explain this magazine ~ it looks really interesting ~ I think I would like to subscribe. Is it an online magazine only?

Is it your magazine, katiecoolady?

katiecoolady
09-02-2005, 10:46 AM
What courage Ann has ~ to not only lose her brother ~ but also her whole family ~ because she wanted to know and then chose to accept the truth.

Please thank Ann for the letter ~

And please explain this magazine ~ it looks really interesting ~ I think I would like to subscribe. Is it an online magazine only?

Is it your magazine, katiecoolady? LOL...no it's not my magazine. I'm just writing for them. Randall Lane is the founder and main Editor there. It's a real magazine (it looks much like a People Magazine--only their premiere issue is on stands now if you can find one). But also has an online version. My column, for now, is on the website for the magazine but I am also writing feature stories for the magazine itself (my first one or two will be in the Oct. issue). They also have offered having me blog from live trials on their website so that's all in the works now. Obviously the entire magazine focuses on the criminal justice system.

Ann is reading all the comments on the site after her letter...she feels really good about telling her story and I'll pass along your sentiments too. :)

PS. If you register online (free) you can get a free T shirt! :D

katiecoolady
09-02-2005, 10:48 AM
It's deja-vu all over again. Even Gnarlene's snarling cur squad has turned on Geragos.
Really ******? I haven't read anything from or about Marlene in ages...she's turned on Geragos? Well, I guess she's realizing SP's first line of appeals will be all about ineffective counsel. She's I'm sure doing the research there and she's got some help on that as well.

noorbe
09-02-2005, 11:06 AM
I have also become aware that the family who did support him during the trial were not pleased with the performance of David Rudolf, who took a clean million from them

Thanks for taking the time to read! :D
Thanks for keeping us informed.

What I think/know the saddest thing is, when there is a tragedy in a family, the family splits. There is a breakup.
I'm in a situation regarding one of my family members, some support him, others do not.
And it just tears the family apart. So far, as in Ann's case, family members do not talk with each other anymore. Nasty conversations, confrontations, etc.
Too bad that this happens, because in a crisis you need each other, not turn against each other.
The same happend in the Scott Peterson case, and I'm sure in many many other cases.

katiecoolady
09-02-2005, 11:14 AM
Thanks for keeping us informed.

What I think/know the saddest thing is, when there is a tragedy in a family, the family splits. There is a breakup.
I'm in a situation regarding one of my family members, some support him, others do not.
And it just tears the family apart. So far, as in Ann's case, family members do not talk with each other anymore. Nasty conversations, confrontations, etc.
Too bad that this happens, because in a crisis you need each other, not turn against each other.
The same happend in the Scott Peterson case, and I'm sure in many many other cases. Well, in the case of Ann Bird, I think it was a blessing she got distance from that freaked out family. She has a good family. Jackie would always and continually be a disappointment to her. If not downright abusive. IMO. I don't feel she will suffer at all (in the long run) getting disconnected from that dynamic.

Ann's is much more complex. She has two brothers (besides MP) and nieces and nephews she's grown up with, spent holidays with, her own child being connected to etc. her entire life. It really is in the wake of this sociopathic bomb going off in the center of her family that has caused all of the destruction. She has had a very close relationship with entire family before that. I hope it heals in the future but save Michael Peterson admitting he did it and her family validating her position, there will be big gaps. She made it clear that no one treats her with disdain really...just total distance. I think they know she knows far more than she's said and wouldn't want to trigger an avalanche (not that she would do that but still...).

katiecoolady
09-02-2005, 11:16 AM
...

Not the kind she needs.
Snort! I bet you might have just some kind of remedy in your hip pocket eh? ;)

katiecoolady
09-02-2005, 11:39 AM
The help she needs is best administered in a professional setting.
"administered"

:laugh:

DAWN TREADER
09-02-2005, 02:30 PM
Hey KCL ... nice work! I'm glad Peterson's sister has found her "voice" vis a vis her connection with you. One can only wonder if the other Peterson family members (sans Anne Bird) will ever come to terms with who and what Scott really is or continue to deny, deny, deny. Clearly the truth is a bitter pill to swallow but as Michael's sister points out, it's definity the key toward healing.

DAWN TREADER :cool:

nanandjim
09-02-2005, 03:41 PM
Didn't the article say that Michael was almost exclusively homosexual recently? If I read it correctly, this is confusing. Wouldn't Kathleen have wondered why her husband was acting different or perhaps giving her the brush-off.

Could Kathleen have said a snide remark that angered Michael enough to strike out at her?

noorbe
09-02-2005, 04:04 PM
Well, in the case of Ann Bird, I think it was a blessing she got distance from that freaked out family. She has a good family. Jackie would always and continually be a disappointment to her. If not downright abusive. IMO. I don't feel she will suffer at all (in the long run) getting disconnected from that dynamic.

Ann's is much more complex. She has two brothers (besides MP) and nieces and nephews she's grown up with, spent holidays with, her own child being connected to etc. her entire life. It really is in the wake of this sociopathic bomb going off in the center of her family that has caused all of the destruction. She has had a very close relationship with entire family before that. I hope it heals in the future but save Michael Peterson admitting he did it and her family validating her position, there will be big gaps. She made it clear that no one treats her with disdain really...just total distance. I think they know she knows far more than she's said and wouldn't want to trigger an avalanche (not that she would do that but still...).
I agree with you on Ann Bird, she's better off without Jackie.
I am happy to hear that the other Ann has great support.


[Quote]It really is in the wake of this sociopathic bomb going off in the center of her family that has caused all of the destruction.] Quote.]


Wow! That's heavy

redeskimo
09-03-2005, 07:00 AM
Thank you Katiecoolady for this article. What a great picture too!;) ;)

Just the other day I pulled up recent articles on the "Other Michael" and was

reading about him. Glad to see his sister speak out.

You did a wonderful job. I look forward to reading your future peices. I know I will be getting this magazine, just to read your work.

Thank you again.

Gozgals.
Do you have any links on this recent stuff Gozgals , I would love to read them Thanks.

katiecoolady
09-03-2005, 01:34 PM
Do you have any links on this recent stuff Gozgals , I would love to read them Thanks.
Here is one great link for you guys on this case--granted totally Guilty perspective but some of the greatest writing and compilation you will find anywhere. May I introduce my online friend Vance Holmes (aka Poetic Justice):


www.vanceholmes.com/court/trial_m_peterson.html

Enjoy!

katiecoolady
09-03-2005, 01:41 PM
Here is more debunking the Maha Mockumentary on this case called The Staircase:

www.peterson-staircase.com (http://www.peterson-staircase.com)

noorbe
09-03-2005, 01:47 PM
Here is one great link for you guys on this case--granted totally Guilty perspective but some of the greatest writing and compilation you will find anywhere. May I introduce my online friend Vance Holmes (aka Poetic Justice):


www.vanceholmes.com/court/trial_m_peterson.html (http://www.vanceholmes.com/court/trial_m_peterson.html)

Enjoy!
Thanks again Katie.
I did read the book: Written in Blood.
It was excellent.

katiecoolady
09-03-2005, 03:21 PM
Thanks again Katie.
I did read the book: Written in Blood.
It was excellent.
I agree noorbe. It was actually the author of that book, Diane Fanning, who hooked Ann Christensen up with me. She's a very cool lady herself. I started reading her book Through the Window but honestly got so spooked I had to set it down. She had alot of access to that serial killer in prison. I intend to follow her writing career ...she's working on a new one (trial) now.

katiecoolady
09-04-2005, 02:34 AM
Didn't the article say that Michael was almost exclusively homosexual recently? If I read it correctly, this is confusing. Wouldn't Kathleen have wondered why her husband was acting different or perhaps giving her the brush-off.

Could Kathleen have said a snide remark that angered Michael enough to strike out at her? Yes, Ann quoted her brother Bill as he was explaining the strength of the DA's case (while attempting to manipulate her to agree to releasing 350K of their father's estate...along with several other strong pieces of evidence against Peterson, which, ironically became the straw for Ann...that which cracked open her mind to realize his guilt). He said that Mike had been nearly exclusively homosexual. That was the first I'd ever heard of that. I suppose it reflected the degree of male on male porn they found and God knows what else Mike confessed to him.

I don't think for one minute Kathleen knew of his sexual acting out. Or was in complete denial about it. She was very preoccupied with the stress at her job at that time. Remember, sociopaths can be VERY convincing, charming and talking anyone out of, or in to, anything.

Many people think she found porn on his computer that night which caused her to confront him and he lashed out.

I think I'm in the minority who believes this was a very carefully crafted attack fueled by his rage against women in general (which Ann was exposed to--her piece is really the tip of the ice berg in that regard). I think he planned this well in advance and staged the whole thing. He was probably fairly impaired himself by alcohol so made several mistakes. He probably also made mistakes in the Ratliff murder but took such control of that scene from start to finish that it was not investigated as a homicide. Which of course spurred him to think he could get away with it again.

In my opinion. I think most of the G's think it was more of a spur of the moment rage killing. I think rage was involved obviously but, with what I know, I think he has some traits of a serial killer in that he enjoys the kill. He enjoys gore and blood and violent scenes...I'll just leave it at that.

nanandjim
09-04-2005, 11:09 AM
...Many people think she found porn on his computer that night which caused her to confront him and he lashed out...I think I'm in the minority who believes this was a very carefully crafted attack...
Now that I think about it, your conclusion makes perfect sense. I mean, what are the odds that Kathleen would be "suddenly" killed in the exact same manner that this other woman died. Too coincidental for my taste...

Could it be possible that he even "planned" for Kathleen to find the porn? If they were in debt and his meal ticket was in danger of losing her job, he may have thought that she was worth more dead than she was alive (due to the large insurance policy). As other killers, he may have thought that he got away with it once. So, he could get away with it again.

katiecoolady
09-04-2005, 12:31 PM
Now that I think about it, your conclusion makes perfect sense. I mean, what are the odds that Kathleen would be "suddenly" killed in the exact same manner that this other woman died. Too coincidental for my taste...

Could it be possible that he even "planned" for Kathleen to find the porn? If they were in debt and his meal ticket was in danger of losing her job, he may have thought that she was worth more dead than she was alive (due to the large insurance policy). As other killers, he may have thought that he got away with it once. So, he could get away with it again.
I think his going out to rent the movie "America's Sweethearts" was part of his preplanning and staging. HE kept bringing this up as if it had significance. Like others would buy the "look at how soulmated we were" line of BS. Who remembers the TITLE of a movie they rented the night their loved one is killed or even thinks to mention it...maybe that they were watching a rental movie earlier in the evening sure..but to go on and on about the title? Even his creepy lawyer kept using that as if it had some kind of meaning. That alwayst to me was a clue.

Did you know about the freaky black cat poster, Le Chat Noir? His first victim had this identical poster in her home when he killed her. Then he takes possession of her daughters and moves into the mansion and hangs that EXACT print at the bottom of a creepy staircase where those girls live. How sick is that? As some memorial to their mother who died at the bottom of a staircase? And the whole black cat symbology. I think he was delighting every time he passed that remembering his first kill. Well, it wasn't his first as he killed many people in the war.

Speaking of that, did you guys know that Patty was protesting the War when he voluntarily signed up? Some people believe that he volunteered for the War so he could have the opportunity to experience killing people...in a legal way. There are many signs that point to this. He had a thirst for killing. Ann's words in her story about him needing to be contained are very very accurate. She knows her brother better than most people...certainly better than those he wanted to buy into his innocence.

redeskimo
09-04-2005, 02:03 PM
Here is one great link for you guys on this case--granted totally Guilty perspective but some of the greatest writing and compilation you will find anywhere. May I introduce my online friend Vance Holmes (aka Poetic Justice):


www.vanceholmes.com/court/trial_m_peterson.html (http://www.vanceholmes.com/court/trial_m_peterson.html)

Enjoy!
Great link . Thanks a million

nanandjim
09-04-2005, 02:20 PM
...Ann's words in her story about him needing to be contained are very very accurate. She knows her brother better than most people...certainly better than those he wanted to buy into his innocence.
Is Michael in the general population? I certainly hope so. Also, was he allowed to use any of Kathleen's money for his defense?? I hope not!! How was her estate distributed?

fran
09-04-2005, 04:03 PM
Katie:
Thank you so much for the link. Interesting article.
I followed this case somewhat, but of course not as closely as the Peterson west case. ;)
It's quite chilling on when Anne realized he actually did do it,... and the first. How scary to think that someone you love and respect is capable of such deceipt, manipulation, and murder! :eek:
I guess it's because of the many new forensic discoveries that they are just now starting to uncover a number of cases such as this,.........whereby upon the death of a spouse they realize that a previous spouse or spouses died under similar circumstances that were ruled 'accidental' at the time. To anyone thinking these guys wouldn't be dangerous because this was a 'one time' occurrance need to think again, IMO.
My hats off to Anne for her courage in standing up for what she believes in. Right is right and wrong is wrong and murder is.........murder.

JMHO
fran

Jeana (DP)
09-04-2005, 05:02 PM
Here is more debunking the Maha Mockumentary on this case called The Staircase:

www.peterson-staircase.com (http://www.peterson-staircase.com)


I followed the trial and knew he was guilty. It wasn't until after watching "The Staircase" that I saw what a true ******* he really is/was. I'm sorry that Anne lost out on having that portion of her family in her life, but honestly, I think she's probably better off. I'm glad that she's telling her side of the story. That Mike would take money from family members with medical needs doesn't even shock me in the least. He's so self-centered that he can't see past his own needs. What did did to his children during that trial and the months leading up to it was disgusting. Hopefully, one day they'll too see the truth and be able to free themselves from him and go on to lead happy, productive lives.

LaMer
09-04-2005, 11:24 PM
Michael Peterson's sister speaks out about his guilt:

www.justicemag.com

KUDOS Katie, great article. Thank you for bringing Ann's voice to us and being there for Ann. This is one case, I will never forget.

Katie, do you happen to know if the German government has reopened the investigation for the death of Liz?

redeskimo
09-07-2005, 08:06 AM
KUDOS Katie, great article. Thank you for bringing Ann's voice to us and being there for Ann. This is one case, I will never forget.

Katie, do you happen to know if the German government has reopened the investigation for the death of Liz?I just read this LaMer www.wral.com/peterson/index.html (http://www.wral.com/peterson/index.html) it's down at the bottom of the piece titled A year after the verdict life goes on for people in the Mike Peterson trial . It say's that Germany has opened an investigation .

katiecoolady
09-07-2005, 11:34 PM
KUDOS Katie, great article. Thank you for bringing Ann's voice to us and being there for Ann. This is one case, I will never forget.

Katie, do you happen to know if the German government has reopened the investigation for the death of Liz?
I don't think it is being considered "reopened" officially. I'm doing a bit of investigating in to that right now. I know Liz's sisters are interested in seeing him prosecuted for her murder. But that is very very delicate considering Liz's daughters who's entire reality is structured that Michael Peterson "saved" them vs. murdered their mother in order to procure them and their incomes. (the latter I obviously believe completely).

redeskimo
09-08-2005, 04:20 AM
I don't think it is being considered "reopened" officially. I'm doing a bit of investigating in to that right now. I know Liz's sisters are interested in seeing him prosecuted for her murder. But that is very very delicate considering Liz's daughters who's entire reality is structured that Michael Peterson "saved" them vs. murdered their mother in order to procure them and their incomes. (the latter I obviously believe completely).
Katie I just read on WRAL that it had been opened for investigation over here , but I personally have heard nothing of this investigation . No one has been to see the people who knew Liz , and nothing on the Media .

katiecoolady
09-08-2005, 04:36 PM
Katie I just read on WRAL that it had been opened for investigation over here , but I personally have heard nothing of this investigation . No one has been to see the people who knew Liz , and nothing on the Media .
I know Liz's sisters are interested in seeing it re-opened but as far as I know, it's not happened. Maybe the Maha production of the propoganda film The Staircase and it's playing and replaying on The Sundance channel which actually spur this in some way. It's already shot MP in both feet in terms of appeals issues (poetic irony IMO), so this would be another sweet reward out of it.

(I think I put another post on here last night about the finances in this trial..did it get deleted?):confused:

lisafremont
09-08-2005, 05:01 PM
Thanks guys for giving this a read. I'm telling Ann about the feedback which makes her feel even better for telling her story...feeling like it's really making a difference.

No, she had no idea Mike was bisexual. It was MY impression (not speaking for her now) that she believed no one in the family knew until after Kathleen's murder, although they tried to play it as known for some time. I don't believe it was.

The conspiracy to exonerate a guilty man is astounding. I suspect it is very similar to what occured in the *other* Peterson family dynamic after he murdered Laci.

I have also become aware that the family who did support him during the trial were not pleased with the performance of David Rudolf, who took a clean million from them. In my own calculations I suspect MP's brother Bill is out about half a million himself alone. Wonder how his family feels about that..him approaching retirement age and all. Sadly, for everyone involved (MP's other economic victims), he could have fared better with a public defender. Rudolf's egomaniacal ways involved serious errors in judgment which assisted the conviction,in my opinion.

Raises alot of questions doesn't it?

Stay tuned....there may be more stories in my column which involve this case and family.

Thanks for taking the time to read! :D

And thanks for taking the time to pass along my question, katie. It is as I thought.

The conspiracy to exonerate a guilty relative. We have seen it often. Perhaps it's wishful thinking, magical thinking: he couldn't have done this! I would have known! And they just can't face the notion that someone they love is guilty. But it's despicable.

We have seen it in the Menendez Brothers case, Jeffrey McDonald's inlaws the Kassabs defended him vociferously at first, Simpson, on and on. Those who stand up for the truth are very admirable.

Watching THE STAIRCASE again, one notices the lying for MP...Bill, IMO, is a better liar than Todd and Clayton and Margaret and Martha and Patty. Or Michael, for that matter. The lies are very obvious.

Michael's recounting of the night Kathleen died is so unbelievable as is Patty's story about Liz Ratliff's. They are like mendacious bookends.

lisafremont
09-08-2005, 05:35 PM
One of the links spoke of the A&E AMERICAN JUSTICE doc "Blood on the Staircase" which is scheduled for 10 Sept. I have found it at 11 pm eastern this Saturday.

Jeana (DP)
09-08-2005, 06:41 PM
I know Liz's sisters are interested in seeing it re-opened but as far as I know, it's not happened. Maybe the Maha production of the propoganda film The Staircase and it's playing and replaying on The Sundance channel which actually spur this in some way. It's already shot MP in both feet in terms of appeals issues (poetic irony IMO), so this would be another sweet reward out of it.

(I think I put another post on here last night about the finances in this trial..did it get deleted?):confused:


Sorry darlin, but I fail to see how the film can be called "propaganda." I'm sure the makers of the film may have wanted to sway the public's opinion toward the defense, but the film is what convinced me that he's a guilty dirtbag. A certainty I would not have had without seeing that film. At the end, the filmmakers say that they began the film trying to prove that he was innocent. They say that they couldn't even convince themselves that he was innocent and cannot make up their minds even today.

katiecoolady
09-09-2005, 12:40 AM
Sorry darlin, but I fail to see how the film can be called "propaganda." I'm sure the makers of the film may have wanted to sway the public's opinion toward the defense, but the film is what convinced me that he's a guilty dirtbag. A certainty I would not have had without seeing that film. At the end, the filmmakers say that they began the film trying to prove that he was innocent. They say that they couldn't even convince themselves that he was innocent and cannot make up their minds even today.
I'm glad it didn't work on you! There are many many viewers posting on various boards who only know about the case via that film and buy into the "wrongfully convicted" BS. The film left out at least 70 pieces of evidence and argument that the jury saw that assisted in their conviction. I met the producer at the trial during jury deliberations and while asking him info about the film and their intentions, he asked my prediction for the outcome. When I said "I think they will convict him" he replied "but what about the reasonable doubt?". To which I replied "I have no doubt whatsoever, reasonable or otherwise". He literally swung around on the stool he was sitting on and turned his back on me mid conversation.

Poncet says he thinks he's innocent. Lestrade is the one who says he's unsure.. But their film sells on the "poor innocent man convicted by unfair American courts because he was bisexual" theme. The jury, when interviewed, said they unanimously decided NOT to deliberate on the bisexual stuff or the prior homicide. But none of that was included in the film of course.

Anyway, I've posted all over the Sundance board about this...and other boards..even with Lestrade himself who keeps arguing that MP was unjustly convicted--guilty or innocent he's hanging on to that "reasonable doubt" deal. Take a look over at www.bbc.com and you'll see what I mean.

Glad it didn't work on you though! :D

katiecoolady
09-09-2005, 12:44 AM
And thanks for taking the time to pass along my question, katie. It is as I thought.

The conspiracy to exonerate a guilty relative. We have seen it often. Perhaps it's wishful thinking, magical thinking: he couldn't have done this! I would have known! And they just can't face the notion that someone they love is guilty. But it's despicable.

We have seen it in the Menendez Brothers case, Jeffrey McDonald's inlaws the Kassabs defended him vociferously at first, Simpson, on and on. Those who stand up for the truth are very admirable.

Watching THE STAIRCASE again, one notices the lying for MP...Bill, IMO, is a better liar than Todd and Clayton and Margaret and Martha and Patty. Or Michael, for that matter. The lies are very obvious.

Michael's recounting of the night Kathleen died is so unbelievable as is Patty's story about Liz Ratliff's. They are like mendacious bookends.
You got that right lisa. Did you catch the fauxpoke find scene (meeting around the table) where Margaret with that sneaky and guilt ridden secret knowing smile hides her face behind a water glass when they are discussing the "finding"?

Oh, found an interesting post today on Vance Holmes site from a BBC viewer regarding the fauxpoke (what we call the found blowpoke...rather "found"). I'll post it in the next post.

katiecoolady
09-09-2005, 12:47 AM
Name:RichE-mail:whoknows05@hotmail.co.uk (whoknows05@hotmail.co.uk)Comments:I've just recently seen the documentary on UK TV. The series certainly created an expectation in the viewers' mind that Peterson would be found not guilty.

From what we saw, it seemed to me that the defence blew it by the way they handled the discovery of the blow-poke. Having found it and had it photographed in-situ, it was vital that they alert the prosecution so that the police could take it away and test it for blood traces etc.

By just keeping it quiet and springing it on the court it created the impression that this was something that the suspect could have bought down at the hardware store. In other words it was vital that they cause the police and prosecution to treat the object as 'THE' blow-poke. The way they mis-handled it, it simply became 'A' blow-poke that didn't prove anything. To have had the prosecution forensic expert on the stand saying there were no blood traces and it hadn't been cleaned would have been very powerful.

The other mistake I thought the defence made was to close their case by playing the 911 call to the jury again. The tape was always very damaging for the defence because it sounded too melodramatic and un-natural. To remind the jury of this was crazy.

Obviously there was circumstantial evidence pointing to Peterson but there were some very strong points in his favour:
1) If you wanted to kill someone then cutting their scalp so that they bleed to death is a very strange way of doing it. You're far more likely to end up with a very bloody but very much alive person who is rather angry at you. The chances of dying from this kind of injury is remote.
2) The lack of cast-off on the ceiling was very strange. The prosecution could never offer a sensible scenario of who this could be avoided.

I'd like to hear what others think.

www.peterson-staircase.com (http://www.peterson-staircase.com)

katiecoolady
09-09-2005, 12:49 AM
For anyone else would like to join me in my crusade to educate the innocent independent film viewers about the reality of this case, please join me (well several of us) at:

http://www.sundancechannel.com/discuss/?ixTopic=232

katiecoolady
09-09-2005, 12:54 AM
One of the links spoke of the A&E AMERICAN JUSTICE doc "Blood on the Staircase" which is scheduled for 10 Sept. I have found it at 11 pm eastern this Saturday.
Thank you Lisa! Ann C. was asked to be interviewed for this program but turned them down. As she thought it was once again gonna be "all about Mike". As she did with Nancy Grace's show and one other. But recently someone posted elsewhere she agreed to speak "off camera" so I will call her tomorrow to verify this.