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.
There are so many factors that don't add up, starting with his claim that his wife was still breathing in the 911 call, but her blood was dry. The injuries to her head did not align with any kind of fall down the stairs. That is what convinced her daughter that it was murder. Even she could not deny the obvious.
If you watched it in real time then you got what the local (very much homophobic) media fed you. Or worse, what the ratings grabbing/cancer to society Nancy Grace shoved down your throat. This comes through in your statement that Peterson must have been hiding his sex life from his wife.
No, I got that from the last episode, in which Michael Peterson himself literally says it. He says, out loud, to the camera, that he was hiding it. Perhaps you haven't seen the updated documentary with this last episode? He talks about his bisexuality for the first time (he says). And he says his wife "knew" earlier about it but that they didn't discuss it (when talking to the AP reporter). That doesn't mean she knew he was contacting escorts. We also have no outside evidence that she knew. The only source is Michael Peterson himself - even the escort saying that is really information coming from Peterson only. Her family certainly didn't know. It would seem likely they'd have gotten a hint if it were an open secret between them.
And I think the sex/gender of the outside party is utterly irrelevant. The real issue is that it was a secret he was contacting someone outside his marriage for sexual contact of some kind.
I was really surprised they left that out of the film, ha! Was one of the craziest theories about this case, and highly publicized. Peterson and his attorney had to have discussed it at length.
Have any of you read these little tidbits of info? I find it inconceivable the prosecution didn't highlight the facts that Michael made no money, his wife was making 6 figures but they were in a mountain of debt, and she had a $1.4m life insurance policy on herself. Michael's name wasn't even on the Mcmansion they were living in.
Money has always been one of if not the biggest motive for murder. Maybe the prosecution brought these facts up but the director didn't include them? seems odd if that's the case.
I think Michael's attorney is a massive buffoon. His client's defense had 2 huge bombs dropped on it - the extramarital sex and the previous incident of an extremely similar death to someone close to him. This guy was actually questioning whether he needed to bring a defense - what the absolute f#@k?!
How in the world did he not make sure the jury had the option of choosing second degree murder? Talk about arrogant.
Have any of you read these little tidbits of info? I find it inconceivable the prosecution didn't highlight the facts that Michael made no money, his wife was making 6 figures but they were in a mountain of debt, and she had a $1.4m life insurance policy on herself. Michael's name wasn't even on the Mcmansion they were living in.
Money has always been one of if not the biggest motive for murder. Maybe the prosecution brought these facts up but the director didn't include them? seems odd if that's the case.
I think Michael's attorney is a massive buffoon. His client's defense had 2 huge bombs dropped on it - the extramarital sex and the previous incident of an extremely similar death to someone close to him. This guy was actually questioning whether he needed to bring a defense - what the absolute f#@k?!
How in the world did he not make sure the jury had the option of choosing second degree murder? Talk about arrogant.
I already knew most of these facts, except for the last one, which states.... Michael Peterson was dating the editor of the film The Staircase?!?!? Ok, that's explaining a lot here. Wow... Just... Wow.
Also, the prosecution did bring up some of the financial information in the case. It was also very well known at the time in the area that Nortel was going through massive layoffs, as their operation and presence in the Research Triangle Park location basically folded. Her job would eventually have been impacted.
I still believe it was a crime of passion more than a premeditated murder - but even so was probably affected by the pressure of the financial aspect of their situation.
I started listening to BBC Beyond a Reasonable Doubt podcast and here are some of the things they covered in the first few episodes:
Quoted Aphrodite Jones as an expert.
Interviewed a cop who implied that when Michael Peterson found out they had to secure the home to investigate the death that he was in shock based on their need to do that.
Stated the injuries on Kathleen Peterson's head could not be a result of a fall per the prosecution.
Now I don't know if he's guilty or innocent, but those three things alone make their entire premise suspect, in my mind.
Aphrodite Jones? Is that the best they could come up with?
And Michael Peterson couldn't have been in shock because his wife is dead?
Last, but not least, the prosecutor's expert witnesses were clowns.
I'm sure there is some merit to the opinion that he's guilty. Hopefully, someone will put together a more intelligent argument than these folks did.
Husband makes no money.
Married to a woman who makes good money.
They were in deep debt, I'm thinking because of Michael's appetite for the good life.
The kids are a mess (my take).
He had sex with men during their marriage, and was a john to male hookers, paid for by Kathleen no doubt.
Pretty much the exact same thing happened several years prior, and he adopted the dead woman's children.
Michael used Kathleen's money in the defense of his murder of her, led by an overpriced buffoon.
Husband makes no money.
Married to a woman who makes good money.
They were in deep debt, I'm thinking because of Michael's appetite for the good life.
The kids are a mess (my take).
He had sex with men during their marriage, and was a john to male hookers, paid for by Kathleen no doubt.
Pretty much the exact same thing happened several years prior, and he adopted the dead woman's children.
Michael used Kathleen's money in the defense of his murder of her, led by an overpriced buffoon.
Poor Kathleen.
That certainly sums it up. The only reason this case was revisited is because blood spatter analyst Duane Deaver was fired for incompetence.
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.
