Fifteen years ago last month (October), Michael Peterson was convicted of murdering his wife, Kathleen Peterson, at their home in Durham, North Carolina. The case and the trial, which dragged off and on from 2003 to 2017, was summarized in the Netflix documentary "The Staircase." My wife Noell and I watched the first episode a few months back and were instantly hooked.
The defense attorney during the original trial, David Rudolf, and the producer of the documentary, Allyson Luchak, visited the Carolina Theatre on October 3rd, and Noell was able to procure tickets for us. David Crabtree, a reporter and anchor for WRAL down in Raleigh, moderated. The purpose of the production was to discuss the trial, the documentary, and the state of the judicial system in the United States.
One critical matter revolves around the original purpose of the documentary. After all, it was Peterson himself that asked for it to be filmed, and Crabtree's first question focused on this very point. Rudolf and Luchak responded that Peterson, who wrote several newspaper pieces in the early 1990s that were very critical of Durham's police force specifically and its criminal justice system in general, felt a documentary was the only way to ensure that he received a fair trial. Essentially, he hoped the district attorney, the judge, and the police would be less biased with a film crew on hand.
Another matter concerns the stairway itself. As viewers, it was impossible to ignore the amount of blood--it was absolutely covered. Head wounds like that suffered by Kathleen tend to bleed profusely, and one of the more shocking parts of the documentary was the common, even gratuitous, appearance of that bloody stairway. In fact, Noell and I repeatedly turned to each other and asked, "How can the family continue to walk by that bloody staircase every day?" Rudolf explained that the blood was not washed off the stairs or the wall because the defense's forensic experts needed to continue to analyze the spatter. However, the portion of the stairway that was covered in blood--the area that opened right onto the kitchen--was usually covered up with a panel of wood so that the family did not, in fact, have to constantly look at it.
One questioner asked about Duane Deaver, the State Bureau of Investigation blood spatter analyst whose questionable methods and misleading testimony for the prosecution played a significant role in convincing the jury that Kathleen Peterson was bludgeoned to death. Deaver was eventually fired by the SBI in 2011 (his appeal of the firing lasted until 2014, when it was finally upheld in a North Carolina court). Could charges be leveled against Deaver? Rudolf responded that only the District Attorney could bring charges against a prosecution witness--something that is very unlikely to happen.
What was particularly striking was how quickly some of Michael Peterson's family turned on him during the trial. The turning point, as we later learned from Rudolf, seems to have been the autopsy photos showing the bloody wounds on Kathleen's scalp. Once these were revealed, many family members, including Kathleen's sisters and Caitlin Atwater, Kathleen Peterson's daughter from a previous relationship, felt strongly that she (Kathleen) had been assaulted and killed by Michael Peterson. While the photos are indeed horrifying, Rudolf speculated that this was an intentional ploy on the part of law enforcement to split the Peterson family. One of the documentary's last episodes records a moving scene in the courtroom when, after Michael had accepted an Alford plea, one of Kathleen's sisters made a statement in front of the court that expressed her anger and sorrow.
Perhaps the most bizarre story to emerge from the trial and its aftermath is the so-called "Owl Theory." I'll admit that I thought the whole thing was ridiculous--after all, how could an owl kill someone? After learning more about it, however, I've come to think that it is at least plausible. The origin of the idea can be traced to the Peterson's neighbor, who suggested that a barred owl attacked Kathleen as she walked back into the house that night. According to this scenario, the attacking owl's talons caused Kathleen's scalp wounds and, reeling and bleeding from the attack, Kathleen then fell down the staircase and eventually bled to death. There are a couple pieces of evidence that lend some support to this idea. First, barred owls are apparently pretty ornery and are known to attack people. Second, there was a small feather found in Kathleen's hair and a twig found on the staircase. Third, her wounds were not consistent with a blunt force object. Finally, blood was found just outside the house, which suggests that Kathleen was bleeding before she fell down the stairs.
The defense, of course, argued that Kathleen's injuries were caused by a fall down the stairs--let's call this the "Fall Theory." (Rudolf was not aware of the "Owl Theory" until it was too late to include in the defense.) Someone asked a very interesting question: Was the Fall Theory created by the defense to protect Michael Peterson, or did they actually believe it? Rudolf responded that this is what Michael claimed to have thought happened, so that is what his team set out to demonstrate.
Rudolf was continuing on to Scotland, and he mentioned that in Scottish law, one of three verdicts can actually be rendered: guilty, not guilty, or "not proven." While this last one is, of course, unfamiliar to Americans, Rudolf argued that it can, in some cases, be a more accurate reflection of a trial's outcome, including perhaps the Michael Peterson case. An interesting point, although there is some pressure to remove this verdict from Scottish law.
The defense attorney during the original trial, David Rudolf, and the producer of the documentary, Allyson Luchak, visited the Carolina Theatre on October 3rd, and Noell was able to procure tickets for us. David Crabtree, a reporter and anchor for WRAL down in Raleigh, moderated. The purpose of the production was to discuss the trial, the documentary, and the state of the judicial system in the United States.
One critical matter revolves around the original purpose of the documentary. After all, it was Peterson himself that asked for it to be filmed, and Crabtree's first question focused on this very point. Rudolf and Luchak responded that Peterson, who wrote several newspaper pieces in the early 1990s that were very critical of Durham's police force specifically and its criminal justice system in general, felt a documentary was the only way to ensure that he received a fair trial. Essentially, he hoped the district attorney, the judge, and the police would be less biased with a film crew on hand.
Another matter concerns the stairway itself. As viewers, it was impossible to ignore the amount of blood--it was absolutely covered. Head wounds like that suffered by Kathleen tend to bleed profusely, and one of the more shocking parts of the documentary was the common, even gratuitous, appearance of that bloody stairway. In fact, Noell and I repeatedly turned to each other and asked, "How can the family continue to walk by that bloody staircase every day?" Rudolf explained that the blood was not washed off the stairs or the wall because the defense's forensic experts needed to continue to analyze the spatter. However, the portion of the stairway that was covered in blood--the area that opened right onto the kitchen--was usually covered up with a panel of wood so that the family did not, in fact, have to constantly look at it.
One questioner asked about Duane Deaver, the State Bureau of Investigation blood spatter analyst whose questionable methods and misleading testimony for the prosecution played a significant role in convincing the jury that Kathleen Peterson was bludgeoned to death. Deaver was eventually fired by the SBI in 2011 (his appeal of the firing lasted until 2014, when it was finally upheld in a North Carolina court). Could charges be leveled against Deaver? Rudolf responded that only the District Attorney could bring charges against a prosecution witness--something that is very unlikely to happen.
What was particularly striking was how quickly some of Michael Peterson's family turned on him during the trial. The turning point, as we later learned from Rudolf, seems to have been the autopsy photos showing the bloody wounds on Kathleen's scalp. Once these were revealed, many family members, including Kathleen's sisters and Caitlin Atwater, Kathleen Peterson's daughter from a previous relationship, felt strongly that she (Kathleen) had been assaulted and killed by Michael Peterson. While the photos are indeed horrifying, Rudolf speculated that this was an intentional ploy on the part of law enforcement to split the Peterson family. One of the documentary's last episodes records a moving scene in the courtroom when, after Michael had accepted an Alford plea, one of Kathleen's sisters made a statement in front of the court that expressed her anger and sorrow.
Perhaps the most bizarre story to emerge from the trial and its aftermath is the so-called "Owl Theory." I'll admit that I thought the whole thing was ridiculous--after all, how could an owl kill someone? After learning more about it, however, I've come to think that it is at least plausible. The origin of the idea can be traced to the Peterson's neighbor, who suggested that a barred owl attacked Kathleen as she walked back into the house that night. According to this scenario, the attacking owl's talons caused Kathleen's scalp wounds and, reeling and bleeding from the attack, Kathleen then fell down the staircase and eventually bled to death. There are a couple pieces of evidence that lend some support to this idea. First, barred owls are apparently pretty ornery and are known to attack people. Second, there was a small feather found in Kathleen's hair and a twig found on the staircase. Third, her wounds were not consistent with a blunt force object. Finally, blood was found just outside the house, which suggests that Kathleen was bleeding before she fell down the stairs.
The defense, of course, argued that Kathleen's injuries were caused by a fall down the stairs--let's call this the "Fall Theory." (Rudolf was not aware of the "Owl Theory" until it was too late to include in the defense.) Someone asked a very interesting question: Was the Fall Theory created by the defense to protect Michael Peterson, or did they actually believe it? Rudolf responded that this is what Michael claimed to have thought happened, so that is what his team set out to demonstrate.
Rudolf was continuing on to Scotland, and he mentioned that in Scottish law, one of three verdicts can actually be rendered: guilty, not guilty, or "not proven." While this last one is, of course, unfamiliar to Americans, Rudolf argued that it can, in some cases, be a more accurate reflection of a trial's outcome, including perhaps the Michael Peterson case. An interesting point, although there is some pressure to remove this verdict from Scottish law.
