Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I sat in the courtroom for two days of that trial back in 2003. I think one thing that worked against Michael Peterson was his rather offensive demeanor, he seemed outright arrogant.
At the time, I thought he was guilty. Have no great memory now of the evidence, however. Will watch this like it's all new. No trial until the end of the year. Meanwhile, he is no longer on house arrest and can move about freely in the state of NC.
Innocent people might well appear to look guilty to those who think they are; that's a fiendish mind game.
I don't expect the trial will start this year. The entire state of North Carolina has long reeked of incredible corruption by state prosecutors. But even for the notoriously evil prosecutors in Durham -- home of Michael Nifong and the Duke lacrosse rape case and farce -- it won't b easy to find another blood expert who is willing to perjure themselves on the witness stand.
It was irresponsible of Michael Peterson attorney, David Rudolph, not to do some basic homework on how an owl's talons would match the lacerations found on Kathleen's scalp and present such evidence and likelihood to the jury. The prosecution death (bleed out) by blow-poke theory was absolutely absurd.
How many murder victims are found with any owl's feather in their hand? Dear Mr. Rudolph, that is what is called a huge clue!
Still more owl feathers were said to have been found, post conviction, in 2009.
At the other "webb"sleuths site, we discussed the owl theory back in 2003. Of course, the BORG there laughed at the notion. But that's par for high-profile cases and trials and the "dey did it" mindless mob that accompanies every case.
Moreover, a blowpoke is a blunt instrument; it would never tear the flesh in the way that Kathleen's scalp was lacerated. The link below shows how talons would match up to Kathleen's scalp lacerations -- it doesn't take a genius to assess the likelihood of the owl storyline. At the very least it powerfully bullhorns: reasonable doubt.
Ok, I looked at the autopsy and saw there was hair in her hands. When do the feathers enter the story?
The first link I posted talked about this -- I'm sorry for the small print on that link, but it is the best now available on the web.
Along with the hair, the state found an owl feather in Kathleen's hand prior to the trial. However, Rudolph did not do anything with it whatsoever.
Owls have microscopic feathers on the feet. One of the links I posted (2009 appeal related article) noted that they later found still more microscopic feathers later on.
[At this point I need to note that North Carolina is infamous for not turning over exculpatory and/or impeachment evidence to the defense. In fact, in September 2004, the state's senior prosecutor, Jim Coman, testified under oath (regarding Alan Gell's death row case and appeal) that North Carolina's Attorney General had a written formal policy against doing so (this is not a joke). Which violates Supreme Court rulings three decades prior. The Duke lacrosse case was an anything but an isolated incidence of malicious prosecution.]
Most importantly, if you go back to my first link, you will find a picture that shows Kathleen's scalp lacerations with an owl's talons as an overlay. It's super obvious they match.
Hope to watch the Sundance series this weekend. Peeked and will say I am fascinated. With the blood smear at the front door and the injuries not fully explained earlier, I am very interested.
I wonder what the youngest child is thinking now - she supported him so much in the beginning, until the bisexuality came out - - but if the owl talons fit........ she has to be in such a hard place.
In my opinion, he is guilty, however the nefarious goings on behind the scenes of the prosecution have now quite probably let a murderer go free.
Unfortunately these high profile cases often become political and the victim is often forgotten in the ego-boosting games that LE and the lawyers play.
I've been in court recently and saw LE lie right in front of me, and the judge could barely stay awake.
Justice is a farce.
Well, at least you're not bitter.
It will be interesting to be what another trial brings.
Hope to watch the Sundance series this weekend. Peeked and will say I am fascinated. With the blood smear at the front door and the injuries not fully explained earlier, I am very interested.
I wonder what the youngest child is thinking now - she supported him so much in the beginning, until the bisexuality came out - - but if the owl talons fit........ she has to be in such a hard place.
Her name is Caitlyn Atwater; she is Kathleen Peterson's true daughter. She and her blood Father split a 1.5M$ insurance payout. Moreover, she brought a wrongful death civil lawsuit against Michael Peterson after he was convicted. And after he filed for bankruptcy, he agreed to a 25M$ settlement. My recollection is that he simply wanted to try and give her some mental closure.
The person I most want to hear from is Peterson's lead trial attorney, David Rudolph. He never brought up the owl theory once or even came close to mentioning it during the trial. To me, that went beyond saying that Michael Peterson had inadequate counsel; Rudolph not doing so represented some form of legal trial insanity to legal incompetence by my measure. Because it's not like the owl theory was unknown or not discussed at the time. We debated it in a huge way on Court TV's forum, and it was also discussed on the other "Webb" sleuths. It was a viable and reasonable alternative even then.
As regards Sundance's broadcasts, the Director of the Staircase documentary, Jean-Xavier De Lastrade was interviewed in 2013, and one of the things he said is as follows: "Two years ago, I met with a well-known neurological surgeon. After a careful look—over several days—at Kathleen’s injuries, he told me, “These injuries are not consistent with any form of blunt instrument used as a weapon. These injuries could not be produced with a pipe, hammer, knife, tire iron, or even a hand claw such as would be used in the garden. These wounds, however, are most consistent with lacerations caused by a large raptor or bird of prey. Four punctures wounds converging to a point via jagged lacerations, without associated scalp contusions, must be considered to have been inflicted by a raptor talon until proven otherwise. Furthermore, these specific lacerations are of the dimensions of a barred owl’s talons.”
Moreover, in 2010, an attorney for Michael Peterson filed three affidavits that provided futher support that Kathleen Peterson's death resulted from an owl attack. The following is from article that spoke about these affidavits.
"The affidavits also included a letter from Robert C. Fleischer, who heads the genetics program at the Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History, who wrote that he was willing to conduct a DNA test on the feathers to determine the species of bird they came from.
Dr. Alan van Norman, in the first affidavit, wrote that two lacerations on Kathleen Peterson's scalp appear to be a pair, with each laceration having "the appearance of a trident with three limbs converging to a point at roughly 30 degrees from each other and a fourth limb converging to the same point at nearly 180 degrees from the center limb of the other three limbs."
Listed in the affidavit as a former U.S. Army surgeon and current North Dakota neurosurgeon and owl expert, Norman recently wrote about owl feathers in The Bismarck Tribune. He said in the affidavit that the injuries are not consistent with a blunt instrument, but rather a large bird of prey.
"The multiple wounds present suggest to me that an owl and Ms. Peterson somehow became entangled," he wrote. "Perhaps the owl got tangled in her hair or perhaps she grabbed the owl's foot."
Dr. Patrick T. Redig, a professor of veterinary medicine at the University of Minnesota, also agreed with the owl theory.
"In my professional opinion, the hypothesized attack to the face and back of the head resulting in the various punctures and lacerations visible in the autopsy photographs is entirely within the behavioral repertoire of large owls," he wrote in the second affidavit.
Kate P. Davis, executive director of Raptors of the Rockies, located in western Montana, wrote in the third affidavit that it is not uncommon for owls to attack people and that they can kill species much larger than themselves.
"The lacerations on Mrs. Peterson's scalp look very much like those made by a raptor's talons, especially if she had forcibly torn the bird from the back of her head," she wrote. "That would explain the feathers found in her hand and the many hairs pulled out by the root ball, broken or cut. The size and configuration of the lacerations could certainly indicate the feet of a Barred Owl."
The person I most want to hear from is Peterson's lead trial attorney, David Rudolph. He never brought up the owl theory once or even came close to mentioning it during the trial. To me, that went beyond saying that Michael Peterson had inadequate counsel; Rudolph not doing so represented some form of legal trial insanity to legal incompetence by my measure. Because it's not like the owl theory was unknown or not discussed at the time. We debated it in a huge way on Court TV's forum, and it was also discussed on the other "Webb" sleuths. It was a viable and reasonable alternative even then.
Totally agree on this point. The standard to demonstrate "inadequate counsel" is quite high(as it should be), but for Rudolf to ignore the owl theory entirely and pursue the defense he did, certainly meets that burden in my opinion. I can't say, with any certainty, what exactly happened to Kathleen, but she sure as helll didn't just fall down that staircase. Henry Lee threw away every ounce of credibility he had when he tried to argue this. It was a ridiculous argument to make, and the jury was likely insulted by the attempt.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wudge
As regards Sundance's broadcasts, the Director of the Staircase documentary, Jean-Xavier De Lastrade was interviewed in 2013, and one of the things he said is as follows: "Two years ago, I met with a well-known neurological surgeon. After a careful look—over several days—at Kathleen’s injuries, he told me, “These injuries are not consistent with any form of blunt instrument used as a weapon. These injuries could not be produced with a pipe, hammer, knife, tire iron, or even a hand claw such as would be used in the garden. These wounds, however, are most consistent with lacerations caused by a large raptor or bird of prey. Four punctures wounds converging to a point via jagged lacerations, without associated scalp contusions, must be considered to have been inflicted by a raptor talon until proven otherwise. Furthermore, these specific lacerations are of the dimensions of a barred owl’s talons.”
Moreover, in 2010, an attorney for Michael Peterson filed three affidavits that provided futher support that Kathleen Peterson's death resulted from an owl attack. The following is from article that spoke about these affidavits.
"The affidavits also included a letter from Robert C. Fleischer, who heads the genetics program at the Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History, who wrote that he was willing to conduct a DNA test on the feathers to determine the species of bird they came from.
Dr. Alan van Norman, in the first affidavit, wrote that two lacerations on Kathleen Peterson's scalp appear to be a pair, with each laceration having "the appearance of a trident with three limbs converging to a point at roughly 30 degrees from each other and a fourth limb converging to the same point at nearly 180 degrees from the center limb of the other three limbs."
Listed in the affidavit as a former U.S. Army surgeon and current North Dakota neurosurgeon and owl expert, Norman recently wrote about owl feathers in The Bismarck Tribune. He said in the affidavit that the injuries are not consistent with a blunt instrument, but rather a large bird of prey.
"The multiple wounds present suggest to me that an owl and Ms. Peterson somehow became entangled," he wrote. "Perhaps the owl got tangled in her hair or perhaps she grabbed the owl's foot."
Dr. Patrick T. Redig, a professor of veterinary medicine at the University of Minnesota, also agreed with the owl theory.
"In my professional opinion, the hypothesized attack to the face and back of the head resulting in the various punctures and lacerations visible in the autopsy photographs is entirely within the behavioral repertoire of large owls," he wrote in the second affidavit.
Kate P. Davis, executive director of Raptors of the Rockies, located in western Montana, wrote in the third affidavit that it is not uncommon for owls to attack people and that they can kill species much larger than themselves.
"The lacerations on Mrs. Peterson's scalp look very much like those made by a raptor's talons, especially if she had forcibly torn the bird from the back of her head," she wrote. "That would explain the feathers found in her hand and the many hairs pulled out by the root ball, broken or cut. The size and configuration of the lacerations could certainly indicate the feet of a Barred Owl."
The lack of cast-off blood has always been the sticking point for me. It's just not reasonable to think that he beat her to death with a blunt object and there be such a lack of cast-off. This wasn't one or two blows, by the State's theory. They claimed it was a sustained attack, yet they offered no real explanation for this.
There is the lack of cast off blood, to be sure. As for the blood being smeared, I believe Kathleen did that herself after she fell, before losing consciousness due to a lack of blood.
I want to know if there was blood at the front door. If so, how does the prosecution explain that.
Totally agree on this point. The standard to demonstrate "inadequate counsel" is quite high(as it should be), but for Rudolf to ignore the owl theory entirely and pursue the defense he did, certainly meets that burden in my opinion. I can't say, with any certainty, what exactly happened to Kathleen, but she sure as helll didn't just fall down that staircase. Henry Lee threw away every ounce of credibility he had when he tried to argue this. It was a ridiculous argument to make, and the jury was likely insulted by the attempt.
The lack of cast-off blood has always been the sticking point for me. It's just not reasonable to think that he beat her to death with a blunt object and there be such a lack of cast-off. This wasn't one or two blows, by the State's theory. They claimed it was a sustained attack, yet they offered no real explanation for this.
Henry Lee was a defense witness. My take is that he knew that Kathleen was not bludgeoned to death with a blunt instrument -- a truly asinine argument -- and he wanted to give the jury the next most plausible explanation in his mind. I don't know if he ever was given the information on the owl feather by David Rudolph. Still, I agree, a fall down the stairs would not explain the jagged lacerations on Kathleen's scalp either.
As for an intelligent explanation of what happened that could have caused such lacerations, the jury never heard one. How they did not find reasonable doubt was beyond me.
I will note that one of the jurors said something post verdict that made my short list of the dumbest things I have ever heard a juror say. It occurred when a crime reporter was questioning a juror live on TV (post verdict) and asked him what evidence he used to find Michael Peterson guilty of premeditated murder. The juror said: “der wud all dat blood.” The reporter waited over a minute for the juror to add something, but his silence became deafening (and embarrassing to watch), and the reporter abruptly ended the interview.
If I were Michael Peterson's new counsel, I would be screaming for a change of venue this time around.
Totally agree on this point. The standard to demonstrate "inadequate counsel" is quite high(as it should be), but for Rudolf to ignore the owl theory entirely and pursue the defense he did, certainly meets that burden in my opinion. I can't say, with any certainty, what exactly happened to Kathleen, but she sure as helll didn't just fall down that staircase. Henry Lee threw away every ounce of credibility he had when he tried to argue this. It was a ridiculous argument to make, and the jury was likely insulted by the attempt.
The lack of cast-off blood has always been the sticking point for me. It's just not reasonable to think that he beat her to death with a blunt object and there be such a lack of cast-off. This wasn't one or two blows, by the State's theory. They claimed it was a sustained attack, yet they offered no real explanation for this.
The blow poke is not a blunt instrument. It has a nasty sharp spur at the end, sharp and downward-angled, not unlike the claw of a raptor.
As for cast-off blood, IIRC there was blood spray up inside the legs of Peterson's shorts, which the prosecution claimed would be hard to explain unless Peterson stood over his wife as he struck her with the blow poke, and her blood sprayed upward onto the inside of his apparel.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
