GUILTY NC - Kathleen Peterson, 48, found dead in her Durham home, 9 Dec 2001

[redeskimo]

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]

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?)

 

[lisafremont]

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!

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]

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)]

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?)

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]

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!

 

[katiecoolady]

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]

Name:RichE-mail:[email protected]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

 

[katiecoolady]

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]

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.

 

[Jeana (DP)]

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!

Well you've got to admit that female prosecutor shouldn't have said it to the jury quite the way that she did. I actually cringed!!! LOL

He's where he belongs, that's for sure!!!

 

[katiecoolady]

Well you've got to admit that female prosecutor shouldn't have said it to the jury quite the way that she did. I actually cringed!!! LOL

He's where he belongs, that's for sure!!!

What? "Pure T Filth"? LMAO She sparked a whole new expression w/ that one.

 

[Jeana (DP)]

What? "Pure T Filth"? LMAO She sparked a whole new expression w/ that one.

I know! I think I spewed diet Coke all over the bedroom!!! AND, someone seriously needs to explain to her about the purpose of make-up and how it reacts to television cameras!!! SCAREY!!!

 

[noorbe]

I saw the staircase documentary months ago on the Sundance channel.

I agree it is bias.
But did the producers not say, that the procecutors agreed to be filmed, and during the trial they changed their minds.
Or did I misunderstand that?
I was in Holland in July, and the documentary was on tv there, during that time.
My sister in law did not understand, based on the documentary that they found him guilty.
I did see the trail on court tv. life as it went on.
So I had much more info than what she was seeing.
We talked for hours, but still she was not convinced.
Katie, thanks for all the links.

 

[Lesleegp]

This is an awesome thread! Loved the letter from Ann. I thought he was guilty from day one. I need to see the movie!

 

[Jeana (DP)]

This is an awesome thread! Loved the letter from Ann. I thought he was guilty from day one. I need to see the movie!

Its like 8 hours (or more) long. I had no idea when I started watching it because the cable channel broke it down into Chapters and each one was like an hour long. It was a Saturday mid-morning when I started watching it and several hours later my husband couldn't believe it was still on! It took all damn day!!! It was worth it, but I'm glad I didn't have anything planned that would make me miss like the last hour. After all that time invested, I woulda been mad!!

 

[Lesleegp]

So from reading your earlier posts on here, are you saying the movie was made to portray him as innocent, but it actually came across making him look guilty?

 

[katiecoolady]

I know! I think I spewed diet Coke all over the bedroom!!! AND, someone seriously needs to explain to her about the purpose of make-up and how it reacts to television cameras!!! SCAREY!!!

LMAO Jeana!!! She sure has a severe look. I have to say, the cameras tone it down. In person it was even MORE dramatic! LMAO!!!

She was so nice though..she hugged both Jordy and I. Very warm person. I love Freda.

 

[katiecoolady]

So from reading your earlier posts on here, are you saying the movie was made to portray him as innocent, but it actually came across making him look guilty?

Alot of people who've only been exposed to this trial from the film have left with the impression he's this poor innocent man wrongfully convicted in the Southern biased American criminal justice system. They've posted all over the bbc boards and Sundance boards about it. Sickening.

I was relived to see Jeana didn't fall in to that trap. The film makers clearly wanted to spin it that way. But they were sure expecting an acquittal. I saw it with my own eyes.

Sundance channel is showing this mini series again now on Monday nights. But I know some have received it in the mail (DVD) and it's upcoming on Netflix with "extras".

 

[mic730]

Oh my poor Michael is portrayed in the film?
I was in Raleigh for business meeting the night he killed Kathleen. It was over the news when I woke up the next day that she had fallen down the steps. I was not from Raleigh but it caught my attention and I followed the case from then on.

IMO this Peterson is just where he and the other Peterson belong.

I feel for and respect MP sister.