The Staircase /// Part 2 /// 244 | Forensic Files

Welcome to True Crime Garage. Wherever you are, whatever you are doing, thanks for listening. I'm your host Nick and
with me as always is a man that tells me you should always go to other people's funerals, otherwise they won't come to
yours. He is the captain. Sometimes I don't even know the bloke. It's good to be seen, it's good to see
you. Thanks for listening. Thanks for telling a friend. Tonight we are drinking Secret Stairs by
Trillium Brewing Company. Garage Grade four and a quarter bottle caps out of five. Secret Stairs is Trillium's
signature style. It's bold, balanced and very satisfying. It's not too sweet and
there's a bitter cocoa hint in there which I love. And this wonderful beer was brought to us by these good folks
right here. First up, we have Allie and Stacy Q in parts unknown. Next we have Sarah in beautiful Cleveland,
Believeland, Ohio. A big cheers mates down under to Emma and Bodhi in Brisbane, Australia. And we
have Roslyn in San Antonio and last but not least Hawks and Doves in Raleigh, North Carolina. Thanks everybody for
your help with this week's shows. If you want to help us out with the beer run for next week's show, go to
truecrimegarage.com. And while you're there, check out our blog and check out the beautiful,
beautiful store page. Yeah, check out the store page. We have team Nick shirts. We had some leftovers, so we put
those on sale. No, they're awesome. They're not Is leftovers a bad bad word? We had some
leftovers and we have new team captain V-necks in stock. People asked for them. We haven't had them in stock for about a
year, so they're back in stock. Get one today. All right, Captain. Everybody gather around, grab a chair,
grab a beer. Let's talk some true crime. During the trial of Kathleen Peterson's
death and the attempted prosecution of her husband, Michael Peterson, the prosecution would call into question
Elizabeth Ratliff's death. Now, on February 18th, 2003, Elizabeth Ratliff's two daughters,
Margaret and Martha, now Michael Peterson's legal wards, gave the Durham District Attorney's office permission to
exhume their mother's body from her Texas grave. At first they were reluctant to allow this,
but they say they want to clear Michael Peterson's name. They were two and one years old at the time that Elizabeth
died. Elizabeth Ratliff was found dead November 27th, 1985. She was 43 years old. When Elizabeth's
husband died, Michael Peterson would come over to visit her every evening after dinner. Peterson and friends
maintained that their friendship was purely platonic. Often he would help her with the dishes
or read to Ratliff's two young daughters before returning home. Elizabeth Ratliff
was found tilted sideways at the bottom of a wooden staircase inside her home. German officials concluded at the time
that Elizabeth Ratliff Ratliff died of an apparent stroke and a criminal investigation was never conducted.
Reports that she was suffering severe, persistent headaches in the weeks leading up to her death were also known.
The coroner determined that the hemorrhaging resulted in immediate death followed by Ratliff falling down the
stairs after collapsing. The Petersons had dinner with Elizabeth Ratliff and her daughters.
And Michael Peterson had stayed that night to help Ratliff put the kids to bed before going home. Mhm. The
children's nanny, Barbara, discovered Elizabeth's body when she arrived the next morning at the home. Yeah, roughly
about 11:00 a.m. Michael Peterson was the last known person to see her alive. Now, before Michael Peterson's trial,
the Durham, North Carolina court ordered the exhumation of Elizabeth Ratliff's embalmed body buried in Texas for a
second autopsy. Uh the body was then transported from Texas to Durham. The Durham medical
examiner found sufficient evidence to drawn from the results of the second autopsy, along with new witness
statements describing the scene, to overturn the earlier findings and list Elizabeth Ratliff's cause of death as a
homicide. State medical examiner's report states that Elizabeth Ratliff died of blunt
force trauma to the head. The autopsy reported several lacerations and fractures to the skull. Now, the
prosecution declined to accuse Michael Peterson of Elizabeth Ratliff's death, Mhm. but introduced the death into the
trial as an incident giving Michael Peterson the idea of how to fake Kathleen Peterson's
accident. Now, Regina Green, an old family friend of Michael Peterson's, pointed out in
the Staircase mini-series how much Elizabeth Ratliff and Peterson's wife looked alike. So, let me get this
straight. They do one autopsy at the time of her death. They say that she had a stroke, then she fell down the stairs.
Mhm. That would probably be the cause her falling down the stairs would be the cause of the trauma to the head. Then
they dig her up. They do a new exam. And then they say there's blunt force trauma and that is the reason why she
died. Yes. And then on top of that, now we have a a friend saying, "Isn't it strange how much she looked
like his wife?" Yes. Which wife? The wife at the time? I believe that she was talking
about Kathleen Peterson who he's later being accused of killing. Mhm. And what's interesting to me there is
I saw I'm not going to lie to you, man. I I saw similarities. Actually, to the point somebody put it on one website a a
side-by-side picture of the two. And I didn't know in advance that I was going to be looking at a side-by-side picture
of two different people. I almost thought it was just Kathleen Peterson at two different points in her
life. Maybe with a slightly different hairstyle or, you know, at one event dressed otherwise. You know, You know,
all white people look the same. So, well, it's a problem. Mhm. And so, the thing is, to me,
they in those two pictures that I saw, they could pass as sisters. Right. Very, very much like one another. Now,
regarding what does it mean though? I don't know that it means I don't know that it means anything. But the thing
is, here's here's the interesting thing that I find here, Mhm. is this is kind of a reversal of what the defense would
do. So, the defense all along in this trial is letting the prosecution point out to you something that they say is
suspicious. And when they present it to you, on the surface, it appears to be just that, suspicious. Then when the
defense comes in, gives you some more information, questions some of that suspicious
behavior or suspicious evidence, then you're left going, "Well, it doesn't seem so suspicious at all." They
basically question everything. They're throwing everything at the wall, the defense, to see what sticks sticks, to
see if any of the jury or all of the jury can go, "You know what? We have plenty of reason to doubt this man's
guilt." Here, we have the prosecution doing the opposite. You know, they're they're
fighting fire with fire, essentially. They're stating, "Look, we have this woman that died and he was she was very
close to Michael Peterson, died almost in the same way. And we're going to exhume her body
He's the last person to see her. He's the last person to see her. She's found at the bottom of a staircase.
And we're going to exhume her body and then we're going to tell you that there were so many similarities in these two
that kind of they're not saying this directly, but what the seed that they are planting in all of these people, in
my opinion, to see if the tree grows, is that, "Well, if you can believe that he
killed one of them, then maybe you have to believe that he killed both of them."
Yeah, the tricky thing here is I believe the initial autopsy found that Ratliff died
in the morning. So, where he would have saw her at night, it would have been probably 11:00
p.m. before he left, that they believe that she actually died in the morning. And he would have an alibi at the time
and that would that alibi would be his current wife at that time. Well, I'll tell you what, man. Watching The
Staircase the first time, and I do have to um point out something here. It I don't
remember when, but a while back we did um some we recommended some docu uh docu series, some true crime
documentaries to watch to our audience, and we did come under fire a little bit because we didn't mention The Staircase.
Now, it At the time I haven't watched it, so You hadn't watched it, and at the time
for me, I watched it when it came out on HBO the first time. I believe it was HBO. And it was so many years before
that we put that list together. I didn't I wouldn't say I forgot about it, but I think I forgot how good it
was, how good the um documentary was. And so it didn't make my list for those reasons. But I do recall when they
brought up this whole Elizabeth Ratliff thing when I watched it the first time, and they're like,
"We have two women close to this individual that died in almost the same manner 16 years apart." Well, [ __ ] that
did it for me, Captain. Well, the documentary's called The Staircase. Now we have two women that died in the
staircase. So, yeah, first of all, I should get a championship belt because you know, we only have a week to work on
these cases. I think I put out um Wednesday's show, put it out last Wednesday. Went home,
had lunch, started binging The Staircase. I was done with The Staircase by Thursday. Mhm.
I mean, that's like a record. I should get a championship belt for a guy that can sit on the couch
and watch 14 hours of a true crime documentary. And I I was all by myself. I'm going to start taking
applications for people that want to watch documentaries with me. Well, like I said, the first time I
watched it, I thought for me that was like, all right, that tipped me over the edge. This guy's guilty.
Okay. At first I was like, yes, this guy he was the last person to see the one lady, she's dead on a staircase. He's
the last person to see his wife, she's dead on a staircase. Yeah. Not good. The problem again that I
have with it is based off the evidence of the first case, one, she had severe, not just kind of headaches, she had
severe headaches. Mhm. She was going to go see a specialist or see a specialist again Yeah, I think because of this. Was
that scheduled for that week, or it was scheduled for very shortly before she died? And and the Or shortly after.
Right. And the initial autopsy, which the second autopsy, they would not have the brain.
Right. Right. So they could not see the hemorrhaging. So you can tell me all you want about uh
fractures or brain bruising or whatever you want to say, but you don't have all the
information. And so the first one saw severe brain swelling, which could also cause brain
bruising, which heck, for all you the fractures probably came from falling down the steps.
But the thing that I have a hard time with is when there there was no rigor mortis.
Therefore, meaning that when everybody it wasn't First of all, Michael Peterson didn't
find her. Somebody else found her. Nanny found her. He didn't call 911 and say, "Oh my
god." It's not the same scenario. Right. The nanny found her. He came over to help. Everybody else was helping. There
was a bunch of people there, a bunch of eyewitnesses. And they moved the body, and there was
no rigor mortis. And so uh And again, then if you're going to you're a writer, you're a creative person, you're a known
liar. If you really wanted to kill your wife, are you going to do so in the same
manner Right. that you possibly killed somebody before? Okay, well, but again, that goes back to
the whole thought for me of premeditation, right? So if your argument as the state's case would be
that he in a fit of rage during the course of an argument lost his scruples and killed his wife, Mhm. Kathleen
Peterson, Mhm. you would also have to argue that if you believe that Elizabeth Ratliff in 1985 was as beat to death as
well, that that would be a similar similar circumstance where he lost it, he attacked her, and beat her to death.
Both of those situations do not imply premeditation. Both of those imply that it was a spur of the moment attack. By
his mother. It was heat of the moment. So again, But the but the other issue here though
is if we have somebody that was {quote} beat to death that has fractures, brain bruising, and you're going to tell me
that this individual It's It's not like he's a Yeah, he's a writer. He's not a huge man.
But in both cases you should see skull fractures. You should see brain bruising. You do not see that in both
cases. And also, in the first case with Ratliff, they think that she actually fell from higher up on the steps.
Right. So if she falls higher up on the steps, there's more chances that she's going to have
uh fractures in her skull because of the fall. And and then and um Kathleen's case, falling
not as far down. So therefore you wouldn't have the fractures. So I guess the thing that's lost on me, because the
prosecution didn't they weren't able to point this out, because again, they're not going to accuse Michael Peterson of
Elizabeth Ratliff's death. But the thing that's lost on me is is what are you what are you trying to tell
me that this means? Are you trying to tell me that it happened once, so and he did it, and
therefore he's capable? Okay, I get that. But don't try to tell me that it happened once, it was not premeditated,
then he kills his second wife, it's not premeditated, and that that means he knew how to do it exactly this way
because he didn't plan to kill the first person this way. Right. You know, so I guess that portion
is lost on me. The interesting thing here though, Captain, I believe that they in attempt to try to tie these together
and to point out that Michael Peterson, if you believe he killed one, then you must believe he
killed both, Mhm. is that they try to point out, I think it was 17 points of similarity between the two incidents.
I would argue that if you can find 17 things that were the same, you could find a minimum of 17 things that were
different. Right. If not many, many more. It wasn't his wife. The two The two I think the two is It
wasn't his house. Right. call 911. He didn't have any evidence of blood on him. One case has fractures, one doesn't. One
has brain bruising, one doesn't. One has brain hemorrhaging, one doesn't. One, the person that falls down the steps has
a history or a believed um uh physical condition condition. One doesn't, but one
we believe is intoxicated and also probably And the the other thing too, is if you
look at it, in one case we have blood, some kind of blood evidence outside of the house, one
where we don't really know if we have any blood evidence other than in the staircase. Mhm.
So I think it's when we say eyewitness statements uh regarding the scene had changed as well in Elizabeth Ratliff's
death or the account of what could have happened, Mhm. really all that we have is we have one person who claims to have
seen Michael Peterson {quote} fleeing the scene that night. Well, first of all, uh you would you would have seen him
leaving. Mhm. Can you can you imply his intentions of and in the manner that he's leaving? What Maybe he's in a hurry
to get home for any number of reasons. So that and then the similarities, the 17 similarities, which again, I think
for every similarity you could point out a difference, if not a big difference. Right. And the motive would be that his
friend had some money, and that therefore he would assume that the money would have been left to him.
Uh he probably knew at some point that if something did happen to her, he was going to become the guardian of her
children. But you got to be pretty sick to be like, "I'm going to murder you, then I'm going to take your money,
and I'm going to raise your kids." Yeah. That's it's just a stretch. Well, and these girls grew up to love him.
It's not like they grew up and there are always this shadow of doubt that, "Oh, he killed our mother." You know, there's
I mean, you got to be a pretty big psychopath to Not a psychopath, that wouldn't be
the correct term, but you get You got to be pretty nuts to be able to kill somebody,
raise their kids in a loving home, and and have them be very intelligent, be very kind, respectful, be upstanding
citizens. That's Well, I had somebody tell me that because he adopted the two girls, that
is proof to them that he didn't kill their mother. Mhm. I I see that side of the coin.
The this the opposite but Right. The opposite side of the coin which I would actually present is maybe
he did kill their mother and him taking care of the children is a sign of remorse. That he felt bad for he did
something in a split second. He can't take it back, but what he can do is make sure that these kids are raised in a
loving home. But what I do point out again is we don't have these daughters going Yeah, he was a violent father.
Right. You know, we don't have any of that. That could have happened behind closed doors. We don't know, but we
don't saying that. We We don't have any friends saying that. We don't have any family members
saying that. a great guy. He's a great father. Mhm. And and there's evidence of that in
the documentary just the way he enact he interacts with his kids. More so and spoiler alert more so before he goes
to jail. Right. So um I think afterwards I think he's definitely different. But obviously he's
older. He spent time in prison. He slowed down and which is obvious. Mhm. And you know what I think you are 100%
spot-on regarding this incident of Elizabeth Ratliff's death and then Kathleen Peterson's death Mhm. is
the medical examiner. The first autopsy and then 16, is that right? 16 or roughly 17 or 18 years later the second
autopsy takes place on Elizabeth Ratliff. Right. And so what you are spot-on in saying is that
you are not examining the same set of evidence 16, 17 years later. Right. In my opinion. And I think that I
not just as a fact. And I have a hard time believing that you can completely reverse everything
that was believed to have been found in the first autopsy 16, 17 years later when you're not looking at the same
same piece of evidence. Hold on, let me go through my notes real quick. Looks like the examiner was
Fahmy Malak. Oh. Oh, that's why. That's why they reversed it. Old Fahmy Malak. It was an ulcer.
No, so now we're at the point Are are we at the point now that he gets tried and he is found guilty?
Well, yeah. Real quick, I want to kind of put my my final stamp on my final thought regarding Elizabeth Ratliff.
Mhm. Okay. Where at first when I was watching The Staircase many years ago when it
first came out, I jumped off off of the couch and I went, "That's it. He did it.
He's guilty. He's guilty. I got him. POS. I'm done. You sex son of a [ __ ] And now years later having
looked at it under a different light, under a different microscope, and putting together information for this
week's case I didn't realize back then that it was ruled that she had a stroke. And so I
look at it now and I go I I can't say with 100% certainty that he didn't kill her, but I can say with
about 99%. Yeah. I feel pretty strong that he didn't kill Elizabeth Ratliff. And I think it has no
bearing on if or not he killed Kathleen Peterson. I agree. I also think that it comes down to there's evidence of a
stroke where they believe there was a stroke, hemorrhaging of the brain. There is a lot of
skull fractures. I believe that happened from her falling down the steps. And I think the lack of rigor mortis and the
the idea that there was so many eyewitnesses that found her body, saw how he was reacting, and then taking her
daughters and raising her um again has no bearing on whether he killed his wife or not. Well, after more
than 3 and 1/2 months of trial, Captain, the jury would finally decide the fate of Michael Peterson. Now, among the
jurors, we had an accountant, a correctional officer, two retail sales people, a shipping coordinator, two
computer operations specialists, and a telecommunications analyst, and three nurses. So two people studied computer.
Okay. They originally took a vote to see where everyone stood. And it turned out
that they were pretty much divided. Four guilty, four people stating he's guilty,
three stating not guilty, and five undecided. They went over the case again. After hours of debate, they kept
coming back to one single exhibit, the autopsy photos of the back of Kathleen Peterson's head. Mhm. A juror
contacted after the trial noted that the jury dismissed the idea of the blow poke
as the murder weapon. By and large, the jurors were swayed by the amount of blood Kathleen lost and the number of
lacerations which indicated to them it could not have been an accident. So on October 10th, 2003,
a Durham County jury found Michael Peterson guilty of the murder of Kathleen Peterson. He was sentenced to
life in prison without the possibility of parole. Denial of parole requires premeditation. Despite the jury
accepting the murder was a {quote} spur of the moment crime, they also found it was premeditated. One juror explained
premeditated meant not only planning hours or days ahead, but could also mean planning in seconds in the seconds
before committing a spur of the moment crime. All right. Cheers, mates. Cheers to you,
Captain. hot in the garage, so I'm switching over to Proper Twelve whiskey. Well, I'll tell you what. So we This is
the point in the show where we have to kind of speed whiskey. We have to speed through a
couple of things because this part is necessary to report, but there's a lot of minutia. There's a lot of dry, boring
stuff that takes place over the course of several years to get to the final result. So we're going to give you the
short of it. The quick We're going to give you the quick and dirty version, okay? We're going to give you the
quickie. So remember the prosecution had a blood spatter expert who gave testimony
against Michael Peterson at his trial. Well, that guy was Duane Deaver. And Deaver Deaver. He is a Deaver. Well,
Deaver was fired from the SBI Don't be a Deaver. in January of 2011 after an independent audit of the agency
found he had falsely represented evidence in 34 cases. Deaver, as we stated, testified in the
2003 Michael Peterson trial. So this is going to cause a big problem for the prosecution and for the conviction
of Michael Peterson. Yeah, and there was actually jury members that came forward
saying a lot of their turning from a not guilty to guilty was based off of this guy's
testimony. Correct. So we have all these court proceedings that take place that are going to challenge the court's
ruling, the jury's ruling that he should be convicted and sent to life in prison
without the possibility of parole. Mhm. They're basically asking for it to be overturned, for the conviction to be
overturned. In turn, the judge is going to state, "Well, we probably should just have a
new trial. Right. We should We could get rid of this evidence. We could re-examine what can
be allowed at the new trial, and we should just go from there." So like with any situation or most
situations they're going to allow Michael Peterson to be released from Durham County Jail
on a $300,000 bail and placed under house house arrest with a tracking anklet in while he waits for this new
trial to take place. Right. So again, there's more fighting of whether there should be a trial. Can we
just get this dismissed or no, there should be a new trial. On November 14th, 2016,
a new trial was scheduled to begin on May 8th of 2017. However, news reports in February of
2017 indicated that a resolution had been negotiated by Peterson's defense and the Durham County DA. Yeah, and
let's let's back this up a little bit. I I just want to They had a bunch of hearings
whether to not let certain things in. And basically Peterson got his ass handed to him on the last hearing.
Right. And and so they didn't want to try to make a deal with the DA or didn't think
it was time to ask for a deal. But oddly, the DA came after him and said, "Hey, we'd like to
offer you this deal." Right. So then then it was up to him to take that deal. So what took place then was
in February of 2017, Michael Peterson entered an Alford plea, a guilty plea whereby the defendant asserts his
innocent Mhm. innocence, but admits that sufficient evidence exists to convict him of the offense.
This was a plea to involuntary I'm sorry, voluntary manslaughter of Kathleen Peterson. The judge sentenced
him to a maximum of 86 86 months in prison with credit for time served. So, what does this mean? This means that
Michael says yes, I'm guilty. Yes, the time that I served already is warranted. Meaning I can't sue the
state for putting me in jail. It's also but he's also stating I didn't do this. Mhm. So, it's
off the record stating I didn't do this. Yes, I but I Well, no, I think it's on the record. I mean, with they they they
they make the deal, but they get to make a statement in court. Yeah, sorry. I mean, I I just
you know, this is a way this is difficult cuz I don't think Michael Peterson wanted to take this
deal. Uh but at the same time, he's getting older. So, he's going to go through another 2 and 1/2 year trial.
Mhm. Uh I don't think it would have been as long of a trial as the last one. Mhm.
But so, that's becomes difficult and he and then your whole family has supported
you and I I believe one of his daughters actually said if we take this deal it's
almost like we did all this for nothing. Right. And and I believe that's how you would feel. I think on on
his standpoint, too, I think the other thing you have to because you wonder the psyche of why they're
taking this deal. I think one, he knew that if he's innocent the injustice was done
before. And but if but whether or not he's innocent or guilty he still might go to jail
for the second time and he'd go away for life. And he would you know, so he's been in jail for all these years. He
gets out. I think that there becomes a bigger fear of ever wanting to go back in. Well, he's what? 70 years old now
roughly? Well, and also the money. He doesn't have as much money. So, If any. where is he going to get this
money to pay for good attorneys? And his attorney that he paid pretty good money the first time His last name's
Rudolph. Yeah, he's getting to the point where he's like, I can try to help you,
but you don't have the financial means to pay me. Not only that, I think at this point Rudolph was in a different
city. Um so, it probably got difficult for him to travel in and out. money. Right.
And if you're not getting paid what you should get paid, I totally understand. I
think you Look, I'll just say it. I watched the documentary when I heard that there was
two women that were dead in similar circumstances. I was like, okay, well, that seems fishy. And then
I'm watching the trial and yes, the documentary is from the defense standpoint. So, you get to see more of
that. But when it came time to read the verdict, the initial verdict, and they said guilty, I was like,
what? And now this is a pretty popular documentary, but I just never seen it. I mean, I was
shocked. Like, not saying that I think that he's innocent or guilty. What I'm stating is I didn't think
the state proved their point. But again you're watching a documentary from the defense point. There's so many things
that are left out of these documentaries. If you're watching something like uh If you let's say you're watching a
Making a Murderer and you can say that somebody's guilty or innocent based on just that
documentary? It's a documentary. There a lot of it is informative, but a lot of it
is skewed. Is skewed. And it's just like it's just like when people say to me uh when they talk about the Adnan Syed
case, whether he they say he's guilty or innocent, and I go what information have you looked up? I
listened to Serial. It doesn't start there. That's just one person's perception of that. That's just
one telling of the case. So, I think in this case, it becomes difficult because they show so much of the defense
that you start almost siding with him. Not saying that he's innocent or guilty, but you you're saying that they're
putting on a good enough defense that they should say not guilty. I agree. I absolutely agree. I don't
think that the prosecution put together that great of a case. Actually, when I looked at the evidence in the the
evidence that they presented in the light that they presented it Mhm. I found it difficult for me to unders- I
understand their theory that there's an argument. I think there are things that point to that
being very plausible and that at some point he killed her. The problem is where you can't push me over the top to
saying that he's guilty is they're a little unclear and a little weird about the actual cause of death.
And they're 100% weird and uncertain of the time of death. And that for me didn't put together that great of a
case. I think that if they had not dropped the ball on those items, they could have probably persuaded me to
state that he's guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. But but the thing is, I think what they
relied on and it's got to be obvious to so many people, they think or thought and
rightfully so, they were successful in that, that look, if we put together a that states that we think that he killed
her and this is why and this is how it happened, we don't have to prove that so much as that we can prove he's bisexual,
he was going outside of the marriage whether she knew or not. Mhm. Um we can prove that somebody close
to him died in a similar way 17 years ago. And we have a blood spatter expert who's going to say, this was a homicide.
Everything that I see at the crime scene tells me she was beat to death. And I think that they knew that that was those
three things were two they were two big of boulders Yeah. for for the jury to get over and it was going to completely
lead them back to a guilty verdict at some point. Yeah, I think simply their thought was,
we just have to prove that this was not an accident and then they'll find him guilty. Right. So, let's get to a
theory. So, again, I just watched this last week. If you haven't watched it, you got to
watch it. I thought it was pretty good. Uh the new episodes they added to it, I everybody said, ah they're a little
lackluster. You get to kind of see what happens that you know, he takes the plea
deal and that's it. That's the end of it. Um but they're kind of wasted episodes, I really think. They
could have condensed it down more. And um but I thought it was a pretty good documentary. But then
uh we were talking on the phone last week and he said well, what about the owl theory?
Yeah. And I was like, wait a second, we can't talk about it cuz I haven't I haven't done any research on it.
So, get let's get into the owl theory. Well, like I said, I have a problem stating that Michael Peterson's
innocent. Um I can't say that 100%. And but I also can't say that he's guilty 100% in my
mind. But then you add the owl theory into this and it it throws everything. It throws everything for me. Because it's
interesting. It's interesting. So, the theory is that Kathleen Peterson's death um was caused by an attack by an owl
outside. And this actually was a theory that one of their neighbors came up with. Yeah,
so that she was attacked by an owl outside of her home in the front of the house. Remember there was a blood
droplet or two found on the walkway and then we have a small blood smear on the front door. Mhm. This is her blood.
So, what was pointed out, the owl theory was raised by Durham attorney T. Lawrence Pollard. He's a neighbor of the
Petersons who was not involved in the case, but had been following the details of the case. He approached the police
suggesting that an owl might have been responsible after reading the North Carolina State Bureau of Investigation
evidence list and finding a feather listed on the evidence list. Now, Peterson's attorneys had determined
that the SBI crime lab report listed a microscopic owl feather Mhm. and a wooden sliver from a tree limb entangled
in a clump of hair that had been pulled out of by the roots found clutched in Kathleen's left hand. A re-examination
of the hair in September of 2008 had found two more microscopic owl feathers. Okay, and so we have these microscopic
owl feathers. Now but you know, let's so we're not spending 3 hours on this. One
it could be from an owl. The other thing that possibly is the if they have certain types of feather pillows that
this could be the reason why they would find a microscopic fiber of an owl feather in her hair.
Correct. So, but you're talking about the the branch in her hand? So, there was an owl feather and um a
basically like a little splinter of a piece of wood that would have come from a tree outside of the home. And this was
found These items were found in the hair that had been pulled out from the root of her scalp Mhm. that was later found
in her hand, clutched in her hand. She was holding her hair. She was holding portions of her hair.
Okay. So, one the idea at first when I hear this idea I think this is ridiculous because I'm starting
to think that she's walking into her house, she gets into the staircase, and then she's attacked by an owl. And
that's what I thought it was. And my idea was then wouldn't the owl, after the owl attacked her, wouldn't the owl
leave more evidence that the owl was in the house? But this theory is is actually that she
was attacked by an owl out front. out front. Away from Michael Peterson. If this went
down the way that they think, she would have been in front of the house, he would have been back by the pool. And he
we've already determined the the size of their yard, their property, and their home. It was proven that at certain
points from that property and from that home, if you're in one area, you can't hear somebody screaming in another area.
Yeah, and and again, now let's let's put this in perspective. When people see the
lacer- Okay, when people see the lacerations on her head, right? They start assuming that those
were made by an owl. Now, that's kind of what the owl theory is, but that's where
you'd be a dummy because if you actually saw lacerations that were put onto females' heads, males' heads, any kind
of laceration that was made by an owl, her lacerations were inches long. These are centimeters. These are tiny
lacerations that are made by an owl. Now, there's zero deaths by owl attacks a year. Zero. Right.
So, but here's where you have to put this in perspective. Again, I thought the owl theory was ridiculous. She's
outside. She is attacked by an owl. A typical attack. A couple small lacerations on her face
that nobody can explain. Not any examiner can explain the little tiny lacerations on her forehead.
You can't explain the the feather other than maybe a pillow, and you can't explain the little splinter of wood
that's in her hair. So, owl attacks her, leaves a couple marks, she's disoriented, she's drunk, she's on
Valium. She then decides, I got to get in the house. I leave the blood outside and on the
door. I need I'm going to go upstairs, right? When you go to go upstairs, you're
bleeding a little bit, but you're still intoxicated, and then you fall. Mhm. And then the falls that were determined
by the defense eyewitness or not eyewitness, but the expert witness, um with the biomechanics,
then all that stuff makes sense. Mhm. And then it also makes sense why she's holding a
piece of her hair. Mhm. So, that's to me would make the owl's the owl theory make sense.
Yeah, yeah, the theory the way that it that I understand it is that look, it it's a barred owl.
Um and apparently these attacks, I've been told, are not uncommon in that area. And that
there were these types of owls located on their property or near their property. There were many people in the
area that had stated that they had some kind of encounter with a barred owl before. Some of them saying they had
even been attacked. Now, under this theory, Kathleen's attack by this owl would be a little more violent than
traditional, um meaning that they think that if she somehow encountered this owl,
that the owl came became entangled in her hair. And that she would have reached up
naturally reached up behind her to try to defend herself, and at which the owl could not get away, is not deliberately
clawing her, but basically claw- clawing the back of her head. Right. And the the contusions or the cuts on
the front of her head, on her forehead, and I believe just below her eye, would have been the beak of the owl. So,
picture the talons, the feet of the owl on the back of the head, she's reaching up toward the owl, and then the owl is
bending forward and trying to defend itself pecking her in the front of the the face.
Right. And so, therefore, at some point they break up. You know, the owl gets away, she goes running inside naturally,
Mhm. leaving a little bit of blood along the way, and then the injury is so great that she loses
her footing or falls backwards on the stairs as you had said. You know what's weird about this though,
Captain? For me, is that I feel like this while on the surface seems like a crazy
theory, Mhm. I don't think I can discredit it 100%. It it it seems plausible. It seems something that
that's possible. Well, the the thing in this case is you have to explain things. You have to
explain why there's blood droplets on the front porch, why there's blood on the front door. You have to explain
that. And this theory explains that. It does. And it also explains why she has a chunk
of her hair in her hand. Right. Uh because if that was entangled I would but again, I think you would
find more evidence of an owl if she was really that wrapped up and that entangled because we still
the the other thing too is we still have those impact marks. That's science. You have to explain
those impact marks on the frame, the door frame. So, Well, she could have still hit those
portions Right, right. fell as a result of a of an owl attack, but where I have an issue with this theory,
not to say that it didn't happen. The problem with it is there wasn't there wasn't really a chance to prove
this theory or disprove this theory. Meaning, what I mean by that is it wasn't until years later that somebody
came up with this theory. The defense never came up with this theory. They thought, like you said, that maybe that
feather came from a a down comforter or down pillow. Well, and actually the the his new
defense team actually looked into this theory, and they were thought there's just too many holes in
holes in the theory for us to even use it as a defense. Okay. So, and and that's
you know, yes, we're into true crime, we know a lot of stuff, but you think his lawyers would
be the ones to tell you, "Hey, there's too many holes in this this theory, so we couldn't use it."
Well, the other thing too, even if it didn't come from a pillow or a comforter or something like that that was already
inside the home, what about the you know, the the prosecution doesn't get a chance to disprove this theory either
because it wasn't presented. And what I mean by that is had this been a theory the night of when they're collecting
evidence the night of and in the morning after, well, they could have potentially combed Michael Peterson's
hair and said, "Well, we found the same feathers, microscopic feath- feathers in
his hair. Well, where did these come from? Maybe they came from the backs of the chairs that they were sitting on
outside." But but again, the the reason why I do like this theory is it it explains the blood outside the
house, but it also explains these little lacerations that nobody's No expert witness, whether it's coming from the
defense or the prosecution, can explain these little tiny lacerations. So, that's one reason that makes me go,
"Hmm, maybe this is not such a dumb idea." I'll give you the little tiny lacerations. The other thing though is
the blood out front of the house and the blood on the doorway could have also come from a blood-soaked Michael
Peterson who just attacked his wife from behind and beat her to death and decided
to run out front for some reason or Or hold on, let me play devil's advocate. reason.
He goes in and finds his wife, and he calls 911, and he's waiting around. A lot of people argue too, "Oh, when he
calls 911, he doesn't sound like he's by her body." And most people that call 911
are by the the person's body that had the accident. Not always true. I think it becomes fight or flight. He's
also drunk. Maybe he had to get out of the room. "Oh my god, I can't take this. Got to get out of the room."
Whether he is the cause of her injuries or not the cause of his her injuries, he
is covered in blood. He at some point takes off his shoes. Is it possible cuz now he's not his feet
don't have any blood. Is it possible that he walks outside to see if the ambulance is there yet and leaves a
little blood on on the So, whether he was guilty or not, that would explain the evidence outside.
Yes, and I agree with you 100%. I mean, you as much as you want to stay there and tend to the victim and try to help
her along, at the same point you're going to be wondering, "Hey, if these people show up to potentially save her
life at the last minute, I better make sure the front door is unlocked Right. or or
and open and open. yeah, or you're panicking, and you just run to the front door and to see if
they're there. Right. So, I mean, that's not that far-fetched. All right, did he do it, Captain? Boom.
Hit you hit you hard with that, didn't I? Did he do it? It's tough, isn't it? It's
I mean, this is actually probably Do you think it's the toughest? one of the toughest did he do it. How
many times have you changed your mind roughly in the past? Never. Okay. But that's cuz
That's pretty solid. But that's cuz I'm never made up my mind. Oh. So, it's I don't think there was enough evidence
to convict him, but I, you know, um I don't know. And And I think the things are one that
they show how some of those lacerations would have came onto her head based off the biomechanics.
So, I believe that. But I can't figure out did she accidentally fall? Which she had enough
volume and alcohol in her system that she could have fell? Mhm. And that would have be That would be a
plausible explanation. And people say, "Well, there's a lot of blood." Well, you're a little bit older, your skin's a
little bit thinner, especially on your scalp, you bleed a lot. Mhm. Especially if you have that high of alcohol levels,
you're going to have thinner blood. I mean, I I I got a tattoo one time after days after drinking. Mhm.
And I mean, the guy who told me two or three times, I might have to stop. I mean, you were
You bleed all over the place. And see, he was like, just some people bleed differently. So, is it possible
that she hit her head and then it caused all that blood, which caused her to slip
multiple times? Maybe. And the other thing though, too, is uh they have all these other theories
that, "Okay, well, the weapon wasn't the poker, the weapon was his hands, and he
actually beat her head against the stairs." Okay, I would argue then, well, you you maybe get lacerations from
beating her head against the the the stairs, but where's the brain bruising? Where's the swelling? Where's the you
know, it's That's where it becomes so odd. How do you get these marks you know, I mean, like, how do you get
these marks without getting any skull fracture? That was the single hardest thing for me
to get over. To That was the And still remains I I shouldn't say get over. It's something that just doesn't make any
sense to me. Where I think it might make some sense to me is as I pointed out before, the jury
didn't believe that the blow poke was the murder weapon. I don't believe that the blow poke was the murder weapon. I
don't see how somebody could make those marks on the scalp using that item without fractures in the skull.
So, that portion kind of makes sense to me. The thing is, I'm with you, Captain, in
the sense that if I were sitting on the jury, I wouldn't have been able to convict
Michael Peterson of the murder of Kathleen Peterson. I think that the defense did a good enough job Well,
based off the documentary. Based off of what I saw in the documentary, correct. Um and based off of what I've researched
since then. Now, if it all went down as I believe that it went down, like I said, sitting on the
jury, I wouldn't be able to convict him. I think there was reasonable doubt that
he didn't commit this murder. Now, I'm not saying that he's innocent. Now, Well, mind you, too, if you were on the
jury, you didn't see his uh initial eyebrows. Cuz they were trimmed. Well, you might
have convicted him with his initial eyebrows. Now, gun to my head, I have to make a decision.
let me get one out. All right. Okay, make sure it's locked and loaded. Take the safety off.
Yeah, this is what you do when you're drinking. No, don't say that. Don't say that, Don't ever touch a gun when you're
drinking. going to be All right. Serious note, don't play with guns. Don't drink and play with guns. All
right. Sorry. Gun to my head. Meaning I have to make a decision. Right, right. Guilty, not guilty. Mhm.
I'm going to go with guilty. I I'm going to say Michael Peterson killed his wife. And And here's where
I'm going with this. This is This is what I believe happened. Mhm. And I'm going to use his words to convict him in
my mind. Mhm. And his words on the um to the documentary uh the staircase documentary, when he's
recounting that night, he says that around 11:00 we finished watching the movie, went into the kitchen for a
while, we talked for a while, for a good amount of time. We went out to the pool,
talked for a good amount of time. She goes inside, goes to bed, I stay outside, have a smoke, I come inside, I
find her dead, I called 911. We do know that the 911 call happened at 2:40, 2:41
in the morning. Okay? Where I have a problem with his version of the story is at no point does he
tell us that she had a phone conversation in his office with her co-worker at 11:08.
Mhm. This was the time that they were supposed to be done with the movie and in the kitchen talking. Right.
And then she's waiting on a very important email. Now, people have pointed out that she never opened that
email that came through at 11:53. That means he killed her before 11:53. I don't believe that 100% because the
meeting was the next day at 10:00 a.m. Right. She could have just wanted to make sure that that email came in. I'll
check it first thing in the morning. Right, but you you she might have checked to see if it was there.
She could have checked to see if it was there. The other thing is, I think what happened,
and I'm using the state's evidence, which I know is slightly flawed, Mhm. but the state's evidence was that she
would have died of blood loss. That would have taken 90 minutes to 2 hours for her to bleed out.
Mhm. She was reported dead She's reported dead by Michael Peterson at 2:46 a.m. in the morning. And what I mean by
that is on the first call, he repeatedly states she's still breathing. On the second call, he says she's no
longer breathing. He might have thought she was breathing though. I'm going by his Again, I'm going by his
words. And if she's coughing up blood or spitting up blood, it's going to be pretty obvious that she's breathing.
She's going to be breathing heavily, too. So, Yeah. He By his own words, she was breathing
at 2:41 and not breathing at 2:46. If it took 90 minutes to 2 hours for her to bleed to death, I don't feel like
there's enough time in his story for her to have fallen accidentally and bled out
for an hour and a half to 2 hours before he finds her and then calls 911. Yeah, um
I don't know if the 11:00 stuff makes sense or not. The other thing I would really want to know
uh it and it never was answered was is he a night owl? No pun intended. It doesn't matter to me though. Go
ahead. No, the reason why is because for a couple to normally married couples go to bed together. Sometimes they don't
always, especially when they're drinking. One drinks more than the other, they go, "I'm going to go to
bed." They're like, "Yeah, I'm up I'm up partying." But you don't normally stay up that much
longer. But he's a smoker, so is it possible that they were drinking and then he sat
there and smoked? And how did he stay out there for 2 or 3 hours? Mhm. Is his timeline wrong? He was drinking, you
know, like they they had the conversation at 11:00. They go outside. Let's say they're only
outside for a couple uh 30 minutes. Right? Mhm. She goes, "I'm going to bed." Okay,
good night. She has her accident. He's out there till 2:30 or whatever. Then then things start adding up. I
don't know if she'd be breathing, but again, I mean, we we again, we don't even know if she was breathing or not.
But by his own words, she was breathing. Yeah, but I don't give a [ __ ] about words. I want to get I want evidence,
you know. Okay, I'm trying to put together my thought and my opinions of the case if
he's guilty or not. No, no, I agree with I agree I agree with what you're saying.
What I'm saying is can't the medical examiner tell us when a closer time she died?
that's why I said that they dropped the ball earlier. If you look at the autopsy, the original autopsy states
time of death 2:40 a.m. question mark. And what I'm stating here is I have to use Michael Peterson's own words and
then work that back against some of the evidence that we have there. And the evidence that's stated by the state is
it would have taken an hour and a half to 2 hours for her to bleed to death. He's stating that at 2:41 she's alive
and at 2:46 a.m. she's dead. Meaning that she went inside either at 1:15, if we are to
believe his story. Mhm. That she went inside as late as 1:15 in the morning or as early as 12:45
a.m. in the morning. And then magically she falls down the steps, he comes in, he says about 30 minutes, 40 minutes
after she went inside, he went inside. And I understand he could have his times off a little bit.
Mhm. The prob- The problem though is if in fact the state is right that it took an hour and a half for 2 hours for her
to bleed to death, his story doesn't match up. It just doesn't match up. Yeah, also, I think the difficult thing
is one one of the things that defense said was they looked at all the cases that
somebody died from blunt force trauma, and there was never a case that there wasn't skull fractures.
So, what did he use? I think the bio um What did I figure out was? Biomechanics.
Okay, there we go. The biomechanic expert was correct. I think, but again, how did she fall? Did she slip or
did she get pulled down? And if you got pulled down hard enough, would you possibly pull out some hair?
Mhm. And then she would grab her hair, and now she has her some hair chunks out of her. And if you
you didn't ask me before if you put a gun to my head. But if you put a gun to my head, I'd
have to say he was he was guilty of this. I personally, what I think happened here, I I don't think, obviously, the
blowpoke was used to kill Kathleen Peterson. I don't know that he intended to kill her. I think that maybe that
there was, like the state said, an an argument that escalated into some kind of physical attack.
Um the result was her her murder, and that he caused her death. Yeah. And but but think about this, too, though.
If he pulls her hair, right? Or pushes her, whatever, to get there's some kind of attack.
It's more likely that she then moves around more, struggles more when she's down there,
tries to get back up on her feet. Mhm. It's just more likely than if she just fell.
Cuz the way the defense tries to make it out is that she just fell, she starts bleeding,
and then she tries to get help, and she tries to stand up, she try You know what
I mean? Well, I think the problem here really is that I do think that she fell down the
steps. And I think that the fall was not um by way of her being drunk or taking Valium or wearing flip-flops or being
attacked by an owl out front of her house. I think she was attacked by Michael Peterson, and that caused her to
have injuries that caused her to fall as she hurried up the stairs. And then she
suffered injuries during the course of that fall, which made it very confusing in the end for all of us to determine
was it an attack or was it a fall? Personally, I think there's some kind of argument ensued in the kitchen, and I
think that if I had to pick a weapon, I think it might have been a corkscrew. I think that he might have tried to
punch her or try to smack at the back of her head as she was leaving him defiantly in the course of the argument,
and he scratched and clawed her with the corkscrew, whether it be intentional or
not. Mhm. But that caused some of the lacerations, which then she went up the stairs, fell backwards, hit her head
again, which resulted in the lacerations getting bigger or splitting, like they had said.
All right. Thanks for listening. Thank you for sharing on social media. It's because of you that we can continue
to drink in the garage and disagree and agree and disagree and And agree. And then agree.
All right. All right. So, check out check out our other show, Off the Record. It's on Stitcher
Premium. It's $5 a month, and what's cool is not only do you get our show, but you get our show without
commercials. You also get other shows without commercial. It's It's basically the Netflix
for podcasting. And if you want to just dip your toes in the water rather than dive all the way into the deep end, Mhm.
you can try it for free for 30 days. So, you can check out Stitcher Premium and see if you love it. We're getting all
kinds of great reviews. I appreciate those. Everybody, make sure you join us back here in the garage next week. Until
then, be good, be kind, and don't litter.

The Staircase /// Part 2 /// 244

Part 2 of 2

www.TrueCrimeGarage.com

Kathleen Peterson was smart, vibrant, professionally successful, and by all accounts a superb daughter, mother, sister and friend. On December 9th, 2001 Kathleen died mysteriously in her home. Was it an accident or murder? In 2004 HBO documented her death and the trial and conviction of Kathleen’s husband, Michael Peterson. In 2018 Netflix documented the release of Michael Peterson. This has been by far one of our most requested cases. HBO and Netflix covered “The Staircase” and this week True Crime Garage is on the case! Beer of the Week - Secret Stairs by Trillium Brewing CompanyGarage Grade - 4 and a quarter bottle caps out of 5

Beer Fund: https://truecrimegarage.com/home

Brief Summary

Michael Peterson's trial for Kathleen's murder intertwines with Elizabeth Ratliff's exhumation and the controversial owl theory.

Key points

The Importance of Funerals. Nick humorously advises attending others' funerals to ensure reciprocity.
Uncanny Resemblance. Discussion on the striking similarities between Elizabeth Ratliff and Kathleen Peterson.
Questionable Motives. The hosts debate the disturbing implications of Michael Peterson's alleged motives.
Michael Peterson Found Guilty. On October 10th, 2003, a jury found Michael Peterson guilty of murdering Kathleen Peterson.
The Alford Plea. In February 2017, Michael Peterson entered an Alford plea, admitting evidence against him while maintaining his innocence.
The Owl Theory. A neighbor proposed the owl theory, suggesting Kathleen's death was caused by an owl attack.

Episode highlights

Episode quotes

I almost thought it was just Kathleen Peterson at two different points in her life.

Discussion about the resemblance between Elizabeth Ratliff and Kathleen Peterson.

7:15WatchNov 24, 2022

Tension

65/ 100Some tension

More from True Crime Garage TV

Solve the Crime

Read a real case one clue at a time, then see how your call held up against the investigators.