Candace Zamperini recounted some of the events in the lengthy case and how Peterson and defense attorney David Rudolf hurt her and her family with a "web of misdirections, lies and intimidation. Zamperini said she initially couldn't believe her sister had been killed and that her death had to have been an accident, but reading the autopsy report and looking at the crime scene photos opened a Pandora's box of doubt and anger. The horrors of my sister's beating were home," she said.
She ridiculed Rudolf's questioning of the medical examiner's opinions as to the cause of Kathleen Peterson's death and to his suggestion that she steered police to believing that a fireplace blowpoke was the murder weapon.
Zamperini said she doesn't care that Peterson entered an Alford plea. To her, her family and the world at large, he's guilty. It means nothing," she said. You will be treated as guilty for murdering my sister Kathleen, and you will be a convicted felon forever. In his interview with WRAL News, Peterson said he would love to reconcile with his wife's family, but he doubts it will ever happen.
We all miss Kathleen. I am so sorry that you lost a sister. I'm so sorry that you lost a mother, Caitlin. I can't do anything about that. I didn't do it. But at Target, a less affluent, more diverse crowd welcomes him because they know firsthand how unfair the law can be, he said.
Margaret, Martha, Todd, and Clayton also believe the justice system failed their father. Until next time, cheers. Thanks, Rebecca. Funnily enough, I was reading about this case again today, before your post arrived.
Which is the more plausible: that an owl attacked his wife or he did, in circumstances where i he was apparently broke and may have wanted her insurance given her income was then precarious too ; ii he was seeing a gay prostitute and she may have discovered it.
What we can say is he was very fortunate to get away with eight years. This is an advantage in the US legal system notoriously, in spite of which he was found guilty — for the good reason that the evidence pointed firmly to him.
The only issue I have is the uncooperative son. What was he hiding? Did he commit the murder and his dad took the rap? Did Peterson commit the murder and the son saw it happen? Did the son hide the murder weapon?
Do we know the police found him uncooperative? He was certifiably a courageous man at one point, then probably a sense of hubris and entitlement from a few books and lux lifestyle took over. Plus a murder under his belt he got away with? Also why does a man who has earned the Silver and Bronze stars for combat heroism have to misrepresent a leg injury? He had the cred already, embellishment not required…and yet he did and got caught offsides.
A greedy murderer. And btw, if you want to get serious cred in prison Peterson, leave the guards be and start banging on the baddest criminals there and bring them down hard. Juvenile and pointless. And any intelligent person knows to not engage with the police without an attorney present — idiots sometimes wear badges. He may have failed to engage with police with one present.. Circumstantial evidence is SOME evidence, that relies on an inference to connect it to a conclusion of fact. On its own, circumstantial evidence allows for more than one explanation.
Different pieces of circumstantial evidence may be required, so that each corroborates the conclusions drawn from the others.
Together, they may more strongly support one particular inference over another. An explanation involving circumstantial evidence becomes more likely once alternative explanations have been ruled out. Reasonable doubt is tied into circumstantial evidence as circumstantial evidence is evidence that relies on an inference, and reasonable doubt was put in place so that the circumstantial evidence against someone in a criminal or civil case must be enough to convict someone fairly.
Reasonable doubt means that there must be clear and convincing evidence of what the person has done. Therefore, the circumstantial evidence against someone may not be enough, but it can contribute to other decisions made concerning the case. Liz l have a suspicion about his son also! I do believe that Mike was covering up for his son!!!! Patty was in the entire documentary. How is your opinion worth sharing when you assume the first woman who died was also his wife?
These comments, my god. The point is that these were two women he was close, from whom he could materially gain, and whose deaths were very similar down to the scratches on the scalps. Since when did juries get their information from the internet rather than court? They explicitly must not get it from anywhere else, and certainly not the web! The first person to go down the stairs and die was not his first wife. She was a neighbor and friend.
She had a will that left her daughters and her estate to Mr. A large inheritance for which to raise her daughters should something happen to her. Which it did. The second woman to go down the stairs was his second wife. This second wife was just fine with Mr Peterson frolicking with the boys when the mood struck. I do not know of one woman, myself included, who would be ok with that little piece of information.
And, I had a husband who frolicked! Women, normally, do not approve of their spouses of approximately four years — or any years for that matter being unfaithful with either sex. According to other articles Mrs. Peterson had an anxiety medication and one or two other mood-altering medications in her system, plus alcohol.
And, the family is just perky beyond belief. No one ever mentions how they miss their loving mother. The one at the bottom of the stairs. I think he got by with two murders — for profit. Shelley, you watch too much tv. Dealing with law enforcement without an attorney is probably the most moronic thing one can do. Even though you might have valuable information that could help them find the killer?
Do ideas like that come easily to you? Very clever. Attend to the original comment: if one might or could be regarded as a suspect, legal counsel is highly wise — the innocent are sometimes convicted.
If merely providing information voluntarily not mirandized , that is a different matter. Those who effectively choose to represent themselves do indeed have a fool for a client… The comment the above was made in response to is breathtakingly foolish for the obvious fact that some are proven to be wrongly convicted of the worst crimes, including because of what they said — or were coerced into saying — to police that a competent lawyer would have prevented or advised against.
I believe after watching the series on Netflix that the defense attorney proved more than once that the prosecutor and the investigators tainted and misled information to the jurors.
Abuse of power in my book. I can not believe that Hardin now a judge was not part of the misrepresentation of facts. We know he chose Deavers and that he withheld evidence from the defense. We know that he hated Peterson for the negative articles Peterson wrote about him. I am very sad to think that someone of such low moral fiber is able to get a position as a judge.
This is why he insisted that the blood stains be given to Deavers. Did anyone not see the reactions to the faces of the prosecutors when Deavers said he handed the some results to them and they acted as if what the fuck is he talking about.
Also the videos that Deavers was recording to get the match he wanted?? All DNA experts agreed that how Deavers came to his opinions were wrong they were flat out lies. What got me to believe he was innocent was first that the DA never gave the defense the report from Deavers which he said he hand delivered to the DA. Second the recreating of the blood splatter was a comic scene at best and last the missing blow toe.
And as we saw that before Deavers testimony the jurors were locked at a hung jury and or acquittal I believe. I agree with Elizabeth. I believe he is innocent and there is no substantial proof of guilt.
He is innocent of how much of the case was tainted. The system is corrupt not just on this side of the house of legal but also on the family law section.
It only serves those in the position to make quota or benefit from deceiving or manipulating the evidence, law, and situation to better their outcome.
Instead of finding the truth. Go to school and search for truth, not anything else. Defense put out the better case. I say that in and of itself should have led to dismissal. Michael Peterson has civil court Jefferson county courthouse in colorado June 23rd division h at 8 am. It was not his first wife. It was the family friend he murdered in similar fashion. The Netflix series is just so insulting to me. Same lawyers and prosecutors as well. When you look closely and take all into consideration including some of his history, well, call me a prejudiced forensics dummy, but I smell a rat, not an owl.
It must be satisfying to know you know better than the jury. Were you in court throughout the proceedings? No mention that Deaver and his blood testimony was all lies leading to his firing from the SBI..
People never understand that phrase.. If that were deemed a reasonable possibility there would be retrial. That said, if he intended to pervert the course of justice as opposed to merely being incompetent , he should be charged. Truly amazing how people scream guilty. Michael Peterson was a victim as much as Kathleen.
Elizabeth Ratliff was a close friend when they were living in Germany. Logic where sexual proclivities and knowing someone who died at the bottom of the stairs must lead to being guilty of murder do not make sense. Murdering for money does not make sense as Kathleen made good money and had excellent credentials to work anywhere.
The owl theory to me makes the most sense. House large so would that be why Michael would not have heard her screaming if a raptor landed on her head? Deep lacerations made her bleed to death in an hour. Where were the experts regarding bleeding to death from head wounds? She may not have screamed and been so stunned with an owl landing on her head. Feathers clutched in her hands and hair? That is the most compelling evidence yet. The events in Germany are further evidence of precedent and his sexual proclivities are evidence of his marriage not being the idyllic one that he claimed in his defence.
She did, on the other hand, have an attractive life insurance policy. Did you think the insurer would pay regardless of whether he murdered her? All through this trial the prosecution manipulated the situation. This proved to be true. Trial by media is pathetic and this is barred in Australia. They had no idea he was bisexual at the time of his arrest. It was the blood, dried, congealed and massive that led first responders and police to believe that her death was no accident.
Taken at face value his Alford plea accepts there was sufficient evidence properly to convict — and had he not plead he would likely have been convicted a second time. Given this I fail to understand why certain observers press for innocence. Wow, had no idea this nut job was out and about.
What are the odds of having 2 dead wives at the bottom of a staircase? Are his kids so confident in his innocence that they let gram pa babysit? Right you are. Released with time served on an Alford plea because of a lying expert witness.
A poor lower class convict would be serving life without parole for 2 murders! He adopted them. He and his first wife, Patricia, were married at the time. Did you people watch the same documentary that I did?
The state not only committed perjury but falsified evidence, hid other evidence? It was a crazy injustice!!!! I pray for peace for him and his family. Oh not to mention her sister was a crazed lunatic! Well, Ed, the response is simple. Regardless of blood-sampling evidence being insecure, the case against him was sufficient to meet the guilty threshold. Did the jury convict significantly because of that testimony? This is not the case here. Furthermore, forensic evidence is not required for a guilty verdict.
Plenty of perps are convicted on circumstantial evidence alone; and that was persuasive in this case. In sum, contrary to your implication, discredited forensic evidence post hoc by no means necessarily undermines a guilty verdict but may cause it to be re-examined to determine if it could reasonably have disadvantaged the defendant, and if so, a retrial ensures. Furthermore, Peterson took an Alford plea — which at face value means that he accepts that there was sufficient evidence to convict notwithstanding his denial.
If the defendant accepts that, perhaps we should…. I know Miss Use! She was in my grammar school spelling class. Too bad for Petersen the jury was full of good spellers. The trial infuriated me. The prosecution had no evidence. Michael Peterson looks broken. My prayers go out to all of them. Indeed, it could be argued that it was the questionable nature of the first that elicited the Alford that enabled him to serve much less time than had he been found guilty either at a non-erroneous first trial or the second had it happened.
I think she is his biological daughter! My husband and I have been thinking that from the start! They look soo much alike! And that would be motive. Motive for what??? Are you people serious??? One of her daughters by the way Makes no sense. The similarities of both women dying at the bottom of the stairs should be red flag enough.
Given the fact that the scientists testimony was at the very least false… You lied about his own experience except era and it seems as though he placed the pieces of this mystery to look like Mike Peterson had done it. Almost as if they tried to frame him by putting information in that Was not true and hiding true facts at the same time period it makes one feel as though Mike Peterson was innocent after all. For real, no one is perfect… And Michael Peterson has paid over and over again for many years now that he was found guilty.
Wow I want to believe that Mike Peterson is not guilty — the evidence makes me shake my head and wonder what really the truth is. This will always be a mystery.
I know I anticipated confession from either his son or him. My heart goes out to both sides of the family. There are almost certainly more than we know of, but the nature of the situation is that that is speculation. Particularly if this is the second murder. I imagine that the proportion wrongly convicted per misconduct is a small fraction of this number.
Your source s , please? In a population of 1. Even if there were triple the above number in reality, that would be 25 cases on average each year in this small country : hardly a figure reflecting a failed system! S is corrupt and unfair but this country is just as bad. Conviction for alleged sexual offences involving adults is particularly susceptible to wrongful outcome as such trials are typically relatively highly predicated on whom to believe and circumstantial evidence. For this reason most fail: a conviction is unforthcoming.
But in your case it was because they wrongly believed the accuser. Evidence of prior failed allegations against others should be considered under appeal per the issue of vexatious litigiousness sometime related to mental ill-health. Good luck in getting you name cleared.
It must be very distressing being falsely accused of a sex crime. I believe in his innocence due to no physical murder weapon, no times of death, no due diligence for crime scene etiquette, and just for the state fishing off of opinions…how do you beat someone to death in the same spot and not crack the skull??? During the trial, the district attorney, Jim Hardin, made the case Kathleen had been beaten to death at the bottom of the stairs by Michael due to the large quantity of blood and the injuries to her head.
She had seven tears of the scalp but no skull fractures, no brain swelling, and no bruising of the brain. They believed the seven lacerations must be from a beating by a weapon such as a blow poke, a brass fireplace tool, because it could cause lacerations yet it is hollow so it would not cause further damage.
Since there was no cast-off blood pattern , he proposed the weapon had been cleaned in between strikes. The defense team included defense attorney David Rudolf, Dr. Werner Spitz, a Forensic Pathologist , Dr. Collectively, they proposed the idea Kathleen tripped walking up the staircase, fell backwards and hit her head on the door frame, causing the larger lacerations and a lot of blood to be drawn.
She likely knocked herself out then tried to stand upon waking, but was dizzy and slipped on her blood and fell again causing the other lacerations.
She likely had a lot of blood on her face, in her hair and if she was coughing, it would have produced a bloodstain pattern on the wall.
0コメント