Original subtitles

Man: IT BECAME A CIRCUS, BECAME ENTERTAINMENT.

JUSTICE WAS LOST, KATHLEEN WAS LOST.

IT ALL BECAME A MATTER OF WARRING SIDES,

WHO’S GONNA WIN THIS THING.

AND THAT’S WHAT THESE THINGS TURN INTO,

THEY BECOME ENTERTAINMENT.

Narrator: IT’S ONE OF THE MOST CHILLING TALES

IN AMERICAN HISTORY.

I WOULD NEVER HAVE DONE ANYTHING TO HURT HER.

I AM INNOCENT OF THESE CHARGES

AND WE WILL PROVE IT IN COURT.

Fanning: IT WAS A BATTLE THAT HAD HIGH STAKES,

AND THOSE STAKES WERE MICHAEL PETERSON’S LIFE.

Narrator: IN THE SECOND HOUR OF OUR 3-PART INVESTIGATION,

A 16-YEAR-OLD SECRET IS UNEARTHED.

Gasparoli: WHO IS VERY CLOSE TO TWO WOMEN

WHO DIED AT THE BOTTOM OF STAIRS?

I DON’T KNOW, NOBODY, EXCEPT MICHAEL PETERSON.

Hardin Jr.: THERE IS NO WAY THIS IS A COINCIDENCE.

YOU’VE GOT TO BE KIDDING ME.

Narrator: THE PROSECUTION BEGINS

TO BUILD THEIR CASE.

Dimond: JURORS COULDN’T BELIEVE WHAT THEY WERE LOOKING AT,

AND SOME OF THEM JUST LOOKED AWAY IN HORROR.

Narrator: AN UNEXPECTED WITNESS

IS THRUST INTO THE SPOTLIGHT.

Black: WHAT TYPES OF SERVICES DID YOU PERFORM?

OH, WELL, THAT’S PRETTY BROAD.

YOU’RE CHEATING ON MY SISTER WITH MEN?

Narrator: THE DEFENSE DISCOVERS

STUNNING INVESTIGATIVE MISCONDUCT.

WHAT?! THAT’S WHAT THEY CALL EXCULPATORY EVIDENCE.

Karas: IF THE JUDGE STRIKES DUANE DEAVER’S TESTIMONY,

THE PROSECUTION’S CASE IS GONNA FALL APART.

Narrator: AND LATER, A NEW AND SURPRISING THEORY

IS HATCHED.

BAM, SHE GETS HIT. BACK RIGHT CORNER OF THE HEAD.

IF IT WAS DONE BY A BIRD,

IT DOESN’T MEET THE DEFINITION OF A HOMICIDE.

-- Captions by VITAC -- www.vitac.com

CAPTIONS PAID FOR BY DISCOVERY COMMUNICATIONS

Peterson: THERE’S THIS BACK STAIRCASE AND THAT’S --

WELL, THAT’S WHERE EVERYTHING BOTH BEGINS AND ENDS.

Gasparoli: MICHAEL PETERSON -- HE’S A CLEAR THINKER.

HE KNOWS HOW TO HOLD AN AUDIENCE.

Karas: HE CLAIMS HER DEATH

IS FROM AN ACCIDENTAL FALL DOWN THE STAIRS.

Dimond: THERE ARE SEVEN DEEP LACERATIONS

IN THE BACK OF HER SKULL.

Gasparoli: MUCH OF THE PHYSICAL EVIDENCE RIGHT AWAY

DID NOT MAKE A LOT OF SENSE.

Dimond: THE MEDIA WERE RIVETED BY THIS CASE.

Fanning: SHE THINKS SHE KNOWS THE WEAPON

THAT WAS USED TO KILL HER SISTER.

Dimond: WHAT MAKES YOU THINK IT’S A CRIME, HUH?

Fanning: LIGHTNING JUST DOESN’T STRIKE TWICE.

Peterson: I DON’T KNOW WHAT HAPPENED,

BUT I KNOW THAT I DIDN’T KILL KATHLEEN.

I LOVED HER.

Narrator: ON DECEMBER 9, 2001,

TELECOMMUNICATIONS EXECUTIVE KATHLEEN PETERSON

IS FOUND DEAD AT THE BOTTOM OF HER STAIRS.

THERE WAS BLOOD EVERYWHERE.

THERE WAS BLOOD ON THE WALLS.

THERE WAS BLOOD ON THE STAIRWAY.

IT WAS A HORRIBLE, HORRIBLE SCENE.

Narrator: 11 DAYS LATER, HER NOVELIST HUSBAND,

MICHAEL PETERSON, IS CHARGED WITH FIRST-DEGREE MURDER.

THE MEDIA WERE RIVETED BY THIS CASE.

THIS WAS A COUPLE THAT WAS VERY WELL THOUGHT OF

IN DURHAM, NORTH CAROLINA.

THEY WERE THE CREAM OF SOCIETY,

SO TO THINK THAT THEY WOULD BE INVOLVED IN A MURDER?

IT WAS TOO GOOD TO PASS UP.

Karas: THE STORY GAINS NATIONAL ATTENTION

AS HE CLAIMS HER DEATH IS FROM AN ACCIDENTAL FALL

DOWN THE STAIRS.

Dimond: ALL FOUR OF THE PETERSON CHILDREN

FIRMLY SUPPORTED THEIR FATHER’S INNOCENCE,

BUT CAITLYN, THE BIOLOGICAL DAUGHTER OF KATHLEEN,

AND KATHLEEN’S SISTER CANDACE,

WELL, THAT WAS ANOTHER STORY.

Karas: IF CONVICTED, MICHAEL PETERSON

FACES LIFE IN PRISON WITHOUT PAROLE.

Narrator: WEEKS LATER, THE CASE TAKES ANOTHER BIZARRE TURN.

Karas: NOT LONG AFTER KATHLEEN’S DEATH,

DETECTIVE ART HOLLAND RECEIVES A TIP

FROM A WOMAN NAMED MARGARET BLAIR,

WHO’S THE AUNT

OF MICHAEL PETERSON’S ADOPTED DAUGHTERS.

MARGARET EXPLAINS THAT HER SISTER ELIZABETH RATLIFF

TRAGICALLY DIED 17 YEARS EARLIER,

AND THERE’S INFORMATION ABOUT HER DEATH

THAT SHE DESPERATELY WANTS TO SHARE.

SHE SAID, "THIS IS VERY UNUSUAL,

AND YOU NEED TO LOOK INTO THIS."

AND SO IT WAS LIKE, "GOLLY."

Narrator: DETECTIVE HOLLAND TAKES IN THE STORY

THAT FUNDAMENTALLY ALTERS PETERSON’S CASE.

IT BEGINS NEARLY 20 YEARS AGO IN GERMANY.

Dimond: IN THE 1980’s, ELIZABETH RATLIFF, AN AMERICAN,

IS LIVING IN GRAFENHAUSEN, GERMANY,

WITH HER HUSBAND AND TWO YOUNG DAUGHTERS,

MARTHA AND MARGARET.

THERE SHE MEETS ANOTHER AMERICAN FAMILY, THE PETERSONS.

MICHAEL AND HIS FIRST WIFE, PATTY,

AND THEIR TWO YOUNG SONS.

Fanning: MICHAEL WAS WORKING ON BOOKS,

AND PATTY HAD A JOB WORKING AT A MILITARY BASE

IN GERMANY AS A TEACHER.

LIZ RATLIFF WAS A TEACHER IN THE SAME SCHOOL AS PATTY.

THEY GOT TO KNOW EACH OTHER.

THEY BECOME FRIENDS, VERY GOOD FRIENDS,

AND LIZ GETS TO KNOW MIKE,

AND THEY BECOME VERY CLOSE FRIENDS, TOO.

Narrator: THEN IN 1983, TRAGEDY STRIKES

WHEN LIZ’S HUSBAND, GEORGE, DIES IN A MILITARY EXERCISE.

THE LOSS LEAVES THE YOUNG MOTHER REELING.

WHEN HER HUSBAND DIED, SHE WAS LEFT

WITH SOLE CARE FOR THESE CHILDREN,

LITTLE MARGARET AND MARTHA.

IT WAS A LOT OF RESPONSIBILITY

FOR SOMEONE WHO THOUGHT SHE’D HAVE A PARTNER

BY HER SIDE FOR LIFE.

LIZ RATLIFF IS ENCOURAGED BY THE PETERSONS

TO MOVE AND TO BRING HER TWO YOUNG CHILDREN

AND LIVE IN THE HOUSE NEXT DOOR TO THEM.

Fanning: MICHAEL WAS THE CLOSEST THING SHE HAD

TO A MAN IN HER LIFE.

THEY WEREN’T INVOLVED AT ALL ROMANTICALLY,

BUT SHE SOUGHT HIS ADVICE AND ASKED

FOR HIS HELP TO MANAGE FINANCES

BECAUSE IT WAS SOMETHING THAT HER HUSBAND HAD DONE

AND SHE JUST WASN’T FAMILIAR WITH IT

AND MICHAEL WAS THERE.

Narrator: BUT IN THE FALL OF 1985,

THE FAMILIES’ LIVES ARE FOREVER CHANGED.

Dimond: ON THE EVENING OF NOVEMBER 24th,

LIZ AND HER TWO YOUNG DAUGHTERS

ENJOYED A FAMILY DINNER AT THE PETERSONS’ HOME.

AND AFTERWARD, MICHAEL PETERSON WALKED HER HOME.

Fanning: IT WAS A VERY SHORT WALK

’CAUSE THEY WERE JUST CATTY-CORNER

ACROSS THE STREET.

Narrator: THE NEXT MORNING AT 7:15,

LIZ’S NANNY, BARBARA, ARRIVES

AND IMMEDIATELY NOTICES SOMETHING UNUSUAL.

Dimond: THE LIGHT IS ON AND THE FRONT DOOR IS UNLOCKED.

WHEN SHE OPENS THE DOOR, SHE MAKES A SHOCKING DISCOVERY.

THERE IS LIZ, CRUMPLED AT THE BOTTOM

OF A STAIRCASE IN A POOL OF HER OWN BLOOD.

IT’S SHEER TERROR NOW.

SHE REACHES DOWN TO TOUCH LIZ,

AND HER BODY STILL FEELS WARM.

SHE IMMEDIATELY GOES OVER TO THE PETERSONS

AND ASKS FOR THEIR HELP BECAUSE SHE DOESN’T KNOW WHAT TO DO.

Dimond: MICHAEL AND PATTY PETERSON RUSH TO THE SCENE.

MICHAEL TRIES TO GET A PULSE

AND THEN GIVES THE DEVASTATING NEWS.

LIZ RATLIFF IS DEAD.

Fanning: WHEN THE POLICE ARRIVED,

MICHAEL WAS ACTING AS THE OFFICIAL SPOKESMAN.

HE TOLD THEM THAT WHEN HE LEFT HER AT HOME,

EVERYTHING WAS PERFECTLY FINE,

AND THERE WEREN’T ANY PROBLEMS,

AND HE WALKED BACK HOME.

HE BELIEVED IT WAS ALL A HORRIBLE, HORRIBLE ACCIDENT.

Narrator: MICHAEL EXPLAINS THAT LIZ’S MEDICAL HISTORY

MAY HAVE PLAYED A FACTOR.

Fanning: MICHAEL TOLD THE AUTHORITIES

THAT SHE WAS SUFFERING FROM A LOT OF HEADACHES,

AND IT WAS VERY POSSIBLE THAT SHE HAD GOTTEN DIZZY

AND JUST FALLEN WHEN SHE STARTED GOING DOWN THE STAIRS.

SHE ALSO HAD A BLOOD DISORDER.

IT WAS A DISEASE RELATED TO HEMOPHILIA

AND THAT’S WHY THERE WAS SO MUCH BLEEDING.

Narrator: INVESTIGATORS PROCESS THE SCENE

AND FIND NO EVIDENCE OF A STRUGGLE OR FORCED ENTRY.

DAYS LATER, A MEDICAL EXAMINER DETERMINES THE CAUSE OF DEATH.

Dimond: IT’S DISCOVERED THAT SHE HAS BLOOD ON THE BRAIN,

AND IT’S BELIEVED THAT SHE’S HAD A CEREBRAL HEMORRHAGE,

PERHAPS A STROKE, AND THEY DETERMINED

THAT THIS WAS DEATH BY ACCIDENTAL FALL.

Fanning: LIZ’S BODY IS TRANSPORTED BACK

TO THE UNITED STATES TO A PLACE NEAR HOUSTON

AND SHE’S LAID TO REST NEXT TO THE BODY OF HER HUSBAND.

Narrator: IN THE WAKE OF LIZ RATLIFF’S DEATH,

IT BECOMES CLEAR THAT THE PETERSONS’ ROLE

IN HER FAMILY’S LIFE WAS GIVEN GREAT CONSIDERATION.

Dimond: TURNS OUT LIZ RATLIFF WROTE A WILL

SHORTLY AFTER HER HUSBAND’S DEATH.

AND IN THAT, SHE LEFT HER $35,000 ESTATE

AND CUSTODY OF HER TWO CHILDREN

TO THE PETERSON FAMILY.

Narrator: WITHIN MONTHS, MICHAEL AND PATTY

RETURN TO THE UNITED STATES

WITH THEIR NEWLY ADOPTED DAUGHTERS.

EVENTUALLY, THE COUPLE DIVORCE ON AMICABLE TERMS.

AND IN TIME, THE CHILDREN CHOOSE TO LIVE WITH MICHAEL.

Dimond: A FEW YEARS LATER, MICHAEL PETERSON,

BACK IN NORTH CAROLINA, MEETS KATHLEEN.

AND THEY ARE MARRIED AND TOGETHER,

THEY ARE RAISING A BLENDED FAMILY,

INCLUDING THE TWO RATLIFF GIRLS.

Narrator: DETECTIVE HOLLAND IS STUNNED

BY THE EERIE SIMILARITIES IN THE TWO DEATHS.

Gasparoli: TWO WOMEN WHO LOOKED REMARKABLY ALIKE

ARE FOUND DEAD AT THE BOTTOM OF STAIRS

WITH A LOT OF BLOOD,

AND THEY’RE BOTH LINKED DIRECTLY TO ONE MAN.

Hardin Jr. IT WOULD BE AN IMPOSSIBLE COINCIDENCE

FOR MIKE PETERSON TO BE THE LAST-KNOWN PERSON

TO SEE KATHLEEN OR ELIZABETH AND NOT BE INVOLVED.

Narrator: MICHAEL PETERSON HAS BEEN CHARGED

WITH THE MURDER OF HIS WIFE, KATHLEEN.

INVESTIGATORS ALSO DISCOVER

THAT 16 YEARS EARLIER, MICHAEL’S GOOD FRIEND,

LIZ RATLIFF,

DIED UNDER STRIKINGLY SIMILAR CIRCUMSTANCES.

THEY BOTH WERE AT THE BOTTOM OF A SET OF STAIRS

WITH SIGNIFICANT BLOOD ALL OVER THE SCENE

WITH SIGNIFICANT INJURIES.

Gasparoli: WHO IS VERY CLOSE TO TWO WOMEN

WHO DIED AT THE BOTTOM OF STAIRS?

I DON’T KNOW, NOBODY, EXCEPT MICHAEL PETERSON.

Hardin Jr.: YOU’VE GOT TO BE KIDDING ME.

THERE IS NO WAY THIS IS A COINCIDENCE.

Narrator: DURHAM POLICE SEEK MORE INFORMATION

ON THE CASE BUT ENCOUNTER A PROBLEM.

SINCE IT WAS RULED AN ACCIDENTAL FALL,

THERE WAS NO REAL INVESTIGATION.

THERE ARE NO PHOTOGRAPHS.

THE PATHOLOGIST WHO FIRST RECEIVED LIZ’S BODY

DID NOT DO A THOROUGH AUTOPSY.

THERE’S NO WAY TO KNOW EXACTLY HOW SHE DIED,

SO THEIR ONLY ALTERNATIVE NOW IS TO EXHUME THE BODY

OF ELIZABETH RATLIFF.

WELL, TO DO THAT, THEY HAVE TO GET PERMISSION

FROM THE FAMILY, FROM HER TWO DAUGHTERS,

MARTHA AND MARGARET.

MY NAME’S JAMES E. HARDIN JR.

I WAS THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY

DURING THE PROSECUTION OF MICHAEL PETERSON.

WE AT FIRST DID NOT BELIEVE

THAT MARTHA AND MARGARET WOULD AGREE TO IT,

AND THEY’D INDICATED TO US THAT THEY WOULD NOT.

Dimond: THESE TWO SISTERS ABSOLUTELY DO NOT

WANT THEIR MOTHER EXHUMED.

THEY BELIEVED THEIR STEPDAD WAS INNOCENT,

AND THEY WERE GOING TO SUPPORT HIM

THROUGH HELL OR HIGH WATER,

BUT THEY THINK ABOUT IT FOR A WHILE.

THEY GO BACK TO THE POLICE DEPARTMENT

AND THE PROSECUTORS AND THEY SAY, "ALRIGHT,

WE GIVE YOU PERMISSION TO EXHUME THE BODY OF OUR MOTHER,

BUT WE’RE ONLY DOING IT TO EXONERATE OUR STEPDAD."

Narrator: ON APRIL 14, 2003,

OFFICIALS EXHUME THE BODY OF LIZ RATLIFF

AT CEDARVILLE CEMETERY IN BAY CITY, TEXAS.

IT WAS EXTRAORDINARY TO EXHUME A BODY

THAT HAD BEEN BURIED MORE THAN 18 YEARS.

Fanning: SHE WAS RAISED FROM THE GROUND IN TEXAS

AND TRANSPORTED BACK TO DURHAM, NORTH CAROLINA.

Dimond: STATE MEDICAL EXAMINER DR. DEBORAH RADISCH

IS THE ONE WHO DID THE AUTOPSY ON KATHLEEN PETERSON,

AND SHE IS THE ONE

WHO IS GOING TO DO THE AUTOPSY ON LIZ RATLIFF’S BODY.

Narrator: UPON EXAMINATION, RADISH DISCOVERS

THAT PART OF THE BRAIN HAS DECOMPOSED.

THE SKULL, HOWEVER, IS STILL INTACT.

IN A STUNNING DEVELOPMENT, THE M.E. DISCOVERS

LIZ RATLIFF HAS SEVEN DEEP GASH LACERATIONS

IN THE BACK OF HER SCALP,

JUST LIKE KATHLEEN PETERSON.

Hardin Jr.: IF YOU LOOK AT THE PHOTOGRAPHS,

THE INJURIES AND THEIR LOCATIONS ARE EERILY SIMILAR.

I MEAN, THEY’RE ALMOST THE SAME.

IT’S SHOCKING HOW CLOSE THEY ARE.

Dimond: RADISH CONCLUDES THAT ELIZABETH RATLIFF

DIED OF A HOMICIDAL BEATING.

REPEATED BLUNT FORCE TRAUMA TO HER HEAD.

Narrator: NEWS OF RATLIFF’S CAUSE OF DEATH

SEIZES THE ATTENTION OF THE NATIONAL MEDIA.

Reporter: IT’S THE DEATH OF ANOTHER WOMAN

THAT’S ADDED A BIZARRE ANGLE TO THIS STORY.

Reporter #2: BOTH WERE LAST SEEN WITH PETERSON

AND BOTH DIED AT THE BOTTOM OF STAIRS.

Dimond: PEOPLE WERE RIVETED BY THIS CASE.

SO IT WAS BIG NEWS, IT WAS FRIGHTENING NEWS,

IT WAS TERRIBLE NEWS.

Dimond: HAD HE ACTUALLY COMMITTED MURDER WITH HIS WIFE

AND WITH ANOTHER WOMAN 17 YEARS EARLIER?

YOU COULDN’T LOOK AWAY.

Fanning: THE INFORMATION ABOUT LIZ RATLIFF’S DEATH

WAS AN ABSOLUTE NIGHTMARE FOR THE DEFENSE.

IS IT POSSIBLE THAT TWO AUTOPSIES

COULD HAVE GOTTEN IT WRONG?

THAT TWO AUTOPSIES COULD HAVE SAID --

IN KATHLEEN’S CASE AND IN ELIZABETH’S CASE --

THAT THEY WERE BOTH

BEATEN TO DEATH AND THEY WEREN’T?

WELL, YOU’VE GOT 2 WOMEN 18 YEARS APART

AND 6,000 MILES APART WITH NO MOTIVE

IN EITHER CASE.

AND YOU HAVE THE SAME PERSON DOING THE TWO AUTOPSIES.

THESE ARE NOT INDEPENDENT AUTOPSIES.

Narrator: A HEARING IS CONDUCTED

TO DETERMINE IF TESTIMONY ABOUT LIZ RATLIFF’S DEATH

WILL BE ADMITTED AT THE TRIAL

FOR KATHLEEN PETERSON’S MURDER.

THERE THE PROSECUTION MAKES A PARTICULAR REQUEST.

Karas: THE STATE DOESN’T WANT THE JUDGE TO RULE YET.

THEY SAY, "LOOK, THERE WAS NEVER A PROPER INVESTIGATION

INTO THE DEATH OF LIZ RATLIFF,"

AND THEY NEED A LITTLE MORE TIME.

AND SO THEY’RE ASKING THE JUDGE TO HOLD OFF

ON RULING WHETHER OR NOT HER DEATH IS ADMISSIBLE.

THE JUDGE GRANTS THE STATE’S REQUEST.

SO THE LEAD DETECTIVE, HOLLAND,

AND ONE OF THE PROSECUTORS, FREDA BLACK,

GET ON A PLANE AND GO TO GERMANY.

THEY’RE GOING TO INVESTIGATE THIS ON THEIR OWN.

Narrator: IN EARLY MAY, JURY SELECTION

FOR THE BIGGEST TRIAL TO EVER HIT DURHAM BEGINS.

MY NAME IS KELLI COLGAN, AND I WAS A JUROR

ON THE MICHAEL PETERSON CASE.

I DIDN’T FOLLOW THE NEWS.

I DIDN’T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT HIS WIFE

OR HIS FAMILY, SO KIND OF MADE ME A CLEAN SLATE.

I AM BETTYE BLACKWELL. I WAS JUROR NUMBER FOUR.

I RECEIVED A LITTLE SUMMONS FROM THE DURHAM COURT SYSTEM.

WHEN I GOT THERE, THERE WAS A MASS OF PEOPLE THERE,

AND I’M LIKE, "UH-OH, SOMETHING REALLY BIG IS GOING ON."

Narrator: ON JULY 1st,

THE HIGHLY ANTICIPATED TRIAL BEGINS.

THE COMMUNITY WAS DIVIDED ABOUT

WHETHER MICHAEL PETERSON KILLED HIS WIFE.

SO AS YOU CAN IMAGINE, PEOPLE WERE EAGER TO SEE THE EVIDENCE.

Dimond: ONCE THE JUDGE IS SEATED, HE BRINGS THE JURY

INTO THE COURT ROOM AND THERE IS MICHAEL PETERSON,

THE MAN ACCUSED OF MURDER.

Narrator: NOW DISTRICT ATTORNEY JAMES HARDIN

DELIVERS HIS OPENING STATEMENT.

Hardin Jr.: I WANTED TO BASICALLY LAY OUT

WHAT WE ANTICIPATED THE EVIDENCE WAS GOING TO SHOW.

WE WANTED TO ALSO MAKE IT CLEAR TO THEM

THAT THIS CASE WAS GONNA BE BUILT

ON PIECES OF A PUZZLE,

AND IT WAS GONNA TAKE A LONG TIME TO DO IT.

Gasparoli: HARDIN SAYS, "THIS IS A MAN

WHO MURDERED HIS WIFE VICIOUSLY.

THE BLOOD WILL TELL THE STORY.

IT WILL SPEAK FOR KATHLEEN."

Dimond: OPENING STATEMENTS IN ANY TRIAL

ARE MEANT TO SHOCK IN SOME INSTANCES.

ONE OF THE FIRST THINGS HE DID

WAS SHOW THE JURY THE SEVEN LACERATIONS

ON THE SHAVED HEAD OF KATHLEEN PETERSON,

AND HE SAID, "THIS IS WHAT WAS DONE TO THIS WOMAN."

JURORS COULDN’T BELIEVE WHAT THEY WERE LOOKING AT,

AND SOME OF THEM JUST LOOKED AWAY IN HORROR.

Narrator: HARDIN THEN ATTEMPTS

TO ILLUSTRATE HOW HE BELIEVES THE WOUNDS

WERE INFLICTED.

HE REACHES INTO A PLASTIC BAG

AND PULLS OUT A 4-FOOT-LONG HOLLOW BRASS ROD,

WHICH HE TELLS JURORS IS A BLOW POKE.

THE PRIMARY MECHANISM WAS SOMETHING LIKE THIS.

IT’S HOLLOW, IT’S LIGHT, IT’S EASILY USED.

NOW, THIS MAY NOT BE THE EXACT ONE

BECAUSE WE CAN’T FIND IT, BUT WE KNOW SHE HAD ONE JUST LIKE IT

BECAUSE HER SISTER GAVE IT TO HER

AND THIS ONE IS HER SISTER’S.

I THOUGHT IT WAS A VERY IMPACTFUL OPENING STATEMENT.

HE SPOKE OF VICIOUSNESS WHILE SPEAKING GENTLY

AND THAT MAKES PEOPLE IN THE JURY BOX LEAN FORWARD

AND LISTEN.

Narrator: NOW THE DEFENSE PREPARES

TO DELIVER THEIR OPENING STATEMENT.

HE HAD A BIG JOB AHEAD OF HIM

TO CONVINCE JURORS THAT THIS WAS AN ACCIDENT.

Dimond: DAVID RUDOLPH BEGINS BY PLAYING THE 911 CALLS

PLACED BY HIS CLIENT, MICHAEL PETERSON, THAT NIGHT.

WHEN YOU HEAR THOSE CALLS,

YOU HEAR A VERY DISTRAUGHT MICHAEL PETERSON.

THEY’RE ABSOLUTELY URGENT-SOUNDING AND CHILLING.

THIS GUY WANTS HELP, AND HE WANTS IT NOW.

IS THIS HOW A MURDERER SOUNDS

OR A VERY CONCERNED, LOVING HUSBAND?

DAVID RUDOLPH DESCRIBED A STORY-BOOK MARRIAGE.

TWO SOUL MATES AND THAT PERFECT STORY

WAS NOT MARRED BY MURDER.

THIS WAS A TERRIBLE ACCIDENT.

WHY WOULD MICHAEL PETERSON KILL THE WOMAN HE ADORED?

Dimond: AS IF TO UNDERSCORE THE GOOD CHARACTER

OF MICHAEL PETERSON, HE LITERALLY STEPPED OUT

OF THE WAY AND POINTED TO MARTHA AND MARGARET

AND REMINDED THE JURY

THAT THESE WERE TWO YOUNG GIRLS THAT MICHAEL PETERSON

SELFLESSLY ADOPTED AND RAISED AS HIS OWN DAUGHTERS

AND THEY CONTINUE TO STAND BEHIND HIM.

Narrator: WITH OPENING STATEMENTS COMPLETED,

IT’S NOW UP TO PROSECUTORS TO PROVE THEIR CASE.

AND THEY CALL A CONTROVERSIAL WITNESS

FROM MICHAEL PETERSON’S RECENT PAST.

Hunt Zamperini: THE DEFENSE FALSELY

WAS TRYING TO PORTRAY LIKE KATHLEEN AND MICHAEL

HAD THIS MONOGAMOUS, FAITHFUL MARRIAGE AND THEY DIDN’T.

Black: WHAT TYPES OF SERVICES DID YOU PERFORM?

OH, WELL, THAT’S PRETTY BROAD.

Narrator: PROSECUTORS IN THE MICHAEL PETERSON CASE

ARE ATTEMPTING TO ESTABLISH THE DYNAMIC

OF HIS MARRIAGE TO KATHLEEN

AND CALL A KEY WITNESS FROM HIS RECENT PAST.

IN THEIR ATTEMPT TO PROVE A MOTIVE,

THE PROSECUTION CALLED AN ADMITTED MALE ESCORT

TO THE STAND.

MY NAME IS BRENT WOLGAMOTT,

AND I WAS THE MALE ESCORT WHO WAS CALLED

TO TESTIFY IN THE MICHAEL PETERSON TRIAL.

I THINK EVERYBODY HAS A CERTAIN TALENT IN LIFE,

AND I KNEW HOW TO MARKET MY TALENTS.

I WAS A SOLDIER IN THE UNITED STATES ARMY, ACTIVE DUTY.

I WOULD NEVER USE MY REAL NAME

TO DO MY ESCORTING BUSINESS.

I WENT BY SOLDIER TOP ONLINE.

IT WAS A WAY TO DIFFERENTIATE MYSELF

FROM OTHER ESCORTS.

Fanning: HE HAD A WEBSITE WITH PICTURES

OF HIM SHOWING OFF HIS MUSCULATURE.

Gasparoli: WOW, THAT WAS A SIGHT, ALRIGHT.

MOST OF HIS CLIENTS WROTE PAGES OF TESTIMONIALS

ABOUT THEIR SEXUAL ENCOUNTERS WITH HIM

AND HOW HE WAS WORTH EVERY PENNY.

Black: WHAT TYPES OF SERVICES DID YOU PERFORM?

OH, WELL, THAT’S PRETTY BROAD.

BASICALLY IT’S A COMPANIONSHIP

FOR OTHER MALES OF LEGAL AGE.

Narrator: FREDA BLACK QUESTIONS BRENT

ABOUT A SERIES OF E-MAILS HE RECEIVED IN AUGUST OF 2001,

FOUR MONTHS BEFORE KATHLEEN PETERSON’S DEATH.

Wolgamott: I WAS CONTACTED BY A MAN WHO I WOULD LATER

COME TO KNOW AS MICHAEL PETERSON.

I WOULD LATER FIGURE OUT THAT OUR E-MAILS

WOULD BECOME A LOT MORE IMPORTANT

TO MY LIFE STORY THAN I WOULD HAVE REALIZED.

YOU TAKE ONE LOOK AT THOSE E-MAILS

BETWEEN MICHAEL PETERSON AND THE MALE PROSTITUTE,

AND YOU SEE THE CONSTANT COMMUNICATION.

WHEN CAN I SEE YOU? WHERE CAN I SEE YOU?

HOW MUCH WILL IT COST?

Wolgamott: WE HAD TRIED TO ARRANGE A TIME

WHERE I WAS GOING TO BE IN DURHAM

AT THE SAME TIME THAT HE WAS GOING

TO BE AVAILABLE TO DO A CALL.

AND THAT DATE THAT WE AGREED ON WAS SEPTEMBER 5, 2001.

Narrator: IN ONE PARTICULAR EXCHANGE,

PETERSON BOASTS OF HIS SEXUAL PAST.

Gasparoli: PETERSON LOOKED VERY COMFORTABLE

IN HIS E-MAILS WITH HIM.

HE MENTIONED HAVING SEX WITH AN NC STATE LACROSSE PLAYER

AT SOME POINT, SO I’M GUESSING

HE’D BEEN DOING THIS ALL HIS LIFE.

Narrator: DESPITE MICHAEL AND BRENT’S PLANNING,

THEIR LIAISON NEVER CAME TO BE.

Wolgamott: I BAILED ON HIM.

I BAILED ON MICHAEL ON THE NIGHT OF SEPTEMBER 5th.

AND HONESTLY, THE LAST THING I WANTED

TO DO WAS WORK AT THE TIME.

I WAS JUST A LAZY SON OF A BITCH,

AND I DECIDED, "YOU KNOW WHAT?

I REALLY DON’T WANT TO DO THIS CALL TONIGHT."

Karas: WHILE THESE TWO MEN NEVER MEET,

THE PROSECUTION SAYS THAT THESE SORDID E-MAILS

REVEAL A HIDDEN LIFE BY MICHAEL PETERSON.

HE’S NOT WHO HE SEEMS TO BE.

Hunt Zamperini: IT WAS HUMILIATING TO KNOW NOT ONLY

HAD KATHLEEN BEEN BEATEN TO DEATH,

"OH, YEAH, YOU’RE GETTING UP AND GOING TO WORK

AND WHAT’S MICHAEL DOING?"

MONEY’S TIGHT, CHRISTMAS IS COMING,

AND HE’S DIALING UP MALE PROSTITUTES.

IT BROKE MY HEART.

Narrator: DAVID RUDOLPH THEN RISES

TO QUESTION BRENT AND DIRECTS HIS ATTENTION

TO ANOTHER TOPIC IN THE E-MAILS

HE EXCHANGED WITH MICHAEL PETERSON.

Wolgamott: HE DID BRING UP KATHLEEN

IN OUR E-MAILS TOGETHER.

HE TOLD ME HOW MUCH HE HAD A GREAT RELATIONSHIP

WITH HIS WIFE

AND THIS IS JUST A PART OF HIS LIFE AND SHE GETS IT,

AND IT’S JUST SOMETHING THAT THEY DON’T TALK ABOUT,

WHICH ACTUALLY I CAN BELIEVE

BECAUSE THERE WERE PLENTY OF OTHER CLIENTS I HAD

WHO WERE MARRIED AND THEIR WIVES KNEW

THAT THEY WERE MAYBE GOING TO SEE ME

ON A PARTICULAR NIGHT.

Karas: THE FACT THAT THERE’S AN E-MAIL

WRITTEN BY MICHAEL PETERSON

SAYING, "LOOK, I AM HAPPILY MARRIED,"

IS REALLY GOOD FOR THE DEFENSE.

IT SHOWS THAT HE REALLY DOESN’T WANT TO DO ANYTHING

TO HARM THE MARRIAGE.

HE JUST WANTS SEX.

WHY IS HE GONNA KILL HER?

WHY WOULD HE KILL THIS DYNAMITE WOMAN

HE DIDN’T WANT TO DO ANYTHING TO HARM THE RELATIONSHIP WITH?

Narrator: BUT KATHLEEN’S SISTER CANDACE DISAGREES.

THERE WAS NO ARRANGEMENT BETWEEN KATHLEEN AND MICHAEL.

YOU CAN CALL IT BISEXUAL, YOU CAN CALL IT GAY.

I FIND IT JUST FLAT-OUT ADULTERY.

SO, NO, MY SISTER WAS NOT STAYING

IN A MARRIAGE WHERE THERE WAS INFIDELITY AT ALL.

THE REASON THAT HER FIRST MARRIAGE BROKE UP

WAS BECAUSE OF AN EXTRAMARITAL AFFAIR

AND WE BELIEVED ALL ALONG THAT THIS

WAS THE TRIGGERING MECHANISM FOR THAT CONFLICT THAT EVENING.

Narrator: BRENT LEAVES THE STAND

AND THE PROSECUTION TURNS TO THE MOST CRITICAL EVIDENCE

UNCOVERED AT THE PETERSON HOME.

AT THE CRUX OF THIS CASE IS THE BLOOD.

THE BLOOD MAKES THE CASE.

George: THE BLOOD THAT WAS IN THE STAIRWELL,

IT WAS ON THE WALLS, IT WAS ON A COUPLE OF STEPS,

IT WAS ON THE RISINGS OF THE STEPS.

THERE WAS A LOT OF BLOOD THERE.

BIG QUESTION IS HOW DID IT GET WHERE IT GOT?

DID IT GET THERE BECAUSE SHE HAD AN ACCIDENTAL FALL

OR TWO OR DID IT GET THERE

BECAUSE SHE WAS BEATEN TO DEATH?

Narrator: TO PROVE THAT THE BLOOD SPATTER

WAS THE RESULT OF A HOMICIDAL BEATING,

THE PROSECUTION CALLS A KEY WITNESS.

DUANE DEAVER WAS AN EXPERT IN BLOOD SPATTER

THAT WE CALLED FROM THE STATE BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION.

Narrator: UNDER QUESTIONING FROM JIM HARDIN,

DEAVER EXPLAINS THAT HE WENT TO GREAT LENGTHS

TO UNDERSTAND THE BLOOD SPATTER FOUND

IN THE PETERSON STAIRWAY.

DUANE DEAVER, MYSELF, AND MEMBERS OF MY TEAM

WENT TO THE FBI LAB IN RALEIGH

AND WE DID EXPERIMENTS.

WE BUILT A SMALL BOX THAT WOULD BE COMPARED

TO THE STAIRWELL.

WHAT CAUSES THE BLOOD SPATTER EVIDENCE?

IT’S A SOURCE OF BLOOD BEING STRUCK.

THE SOURCE OF BLOOD IS THE BACK OF HER HEAD,

WHICH HAS ALREADY BEGUN TO BE BLOODY.

George: AND WE TOOK A MANNEQUIN HEAD, PUT A WIG ON IT

AND POURED PIG’S BLOOD ALL OVER THE WIG.

AND WE STRUCK IT MANY, MANY TIMES

WITH A BLUNT OBJECT JUST TO SEE

IF THE BLOOD SPATTERING WOULD BE COMPARATIVE

TO WHAT WE FOUND IN THE STAIRWELL OF THE HOME.

NOW, THE EXTRAPOLATION IS

THAT SHE WAS STANDING AND SOMEONE WAS STRIKING HER

WITH SOME SORT OF OBJECT ON HER HEAD.

AND WHEN THEY PULLED THE OBJECT BACK

TO HIT HER AGAIN, THE BLOOD CAST OFF

AND LANDED ON THE WALL IN A DOWNWARD FASHION.

THAT’S WHY IT’S SO HIGH UP ON THE WALL.

Narrator: DEAVER THEN EXPLAINS

THAT THE RESULTING BLOOD SPATTER

WAS NOT LIMITED TO THE STAIRWAY WALLS.

George: CLOTHES THAT MICHAEL WAS WEARING AT THE TIME,

HE HAD ON A PAIR OF SHORTS

AND WHAT APPEARED TO BE A JERSEY-TYPE TOP.

THERE WAS BLOOD SMEARS ALL OVER HIS SHORTS.

THERE WERE ALSO DRIED BLOOD SPATTERINGS

ON THE INSIDE THE LEGS OF MICHAEL PETERSON’S CLOTHING.

DEAVER EXPLAINED THAT HE HAD DONE EXPERIMENTS

AND THOSE EXPERIMENTS PROVED TO HIM

THAT MICHAEL PETERSON HAD TO HAVE BEEN

STANDING OVER HIS WIFE, BEATING HER

AND THE BLOOD SPLATTERED BACK UP ON HIM.

THAT TO ME IS THE MOST DAMNING EVIDENCE

BECAUSE THERE’S NO WAY

THAT THAT COULD HAVE HAPPENED EXCEPT FOR HIM

BEING ABOVE HER CAUSING THE BLOOD SPATTER.

Narrator: ACCORDING TO DEAVER,

THERE ARE ADDITIONAL PIECES OF EVIDENCE

COLLECTED AT THE SCENE

THAT SUPPORT THIS THEORY.

WHEN I FIRST OBSERVED MICHAEL PETERSON

RUNNING THROUGH THE HOUSE, HE DIDN’T HAVE SHOES ON.

WHEN I COLLECTED HIS SHOES,

THE BOTTOM OF HIS SHOES WERE BLOODY

AND ALL THAT WAS SENT TO THE FBI LAB.

AT THE CRIME SCENE, POLICE HAD FOUND A PARTIAL SHOE PRINT

ON THE BACK OF KATHLEEN’S SWEATPANTS.

WHEN INVESTIGATORS LATER TESTED THAT FOOTPRINT,

IT MATCHED THE SNEAKERS THAT MICHAEL PETERSON

HAD BEEN WEARING THAT NIGHT.

IT’S CLEAR THAT AT SOME POINT,

HE’S ATTEMPTING TO KEEP HER DOWN

WHILE HE’S ADMINISTERING SOME ASPECT

OF THIS BEATING TO HER.

Narrator: NOW IT’S DAVID RUDOLPH’S TURN

TO CROSS-EXAMINE DUANE DEAVER.

HE BEGINS BY ATTACKING THE BLOOD SPECIALIST’S METHODS.

RUDOLPH GOES THROUGH A LITANY OF QUESTIONS

CHALLENGING THE "SCIENTIFIC" EXPERIMENTS

THAT DEAVER DID.

LIKE HOW MUCH BLOOD DID YOU PUT IN THOSE SPONGES?

YOU TRYING TO REPLICATE BLOOD IN A HEAD.

HE’S ASKING QUESTIONS

DEAVER REALLY DIDN’T HAVE AN ANSWER TO.

Maher: THINK THEY DROPPED A MANNEQUIN’S HEAD FROM A LADDER.

LIKE NOBODY SUGGESTED THAT SHE

WAS DROPPED FROM A LADDER STRAIGHT ON HER HEAD,

SO WHY WOULD YOU EVEN DO THAT?

Karas: IT’S LIKE HE’S DOING THINGS OVER AND OVER AGAIN

ALMOST AS THOUGH HE’S WAITING TO GET THE RIGHT RESULT.

Dimond: IT WAS LAUGHABLE.

JUNK SCIENCE IN THE WORDS OF THE DEFENSE ATTORNEY.

Narrator: RUDOLPH THEN QUESTIONS DEAVER

ABOUT AN ARTICLE OF MICHAEL’S CLOTHING

THAT RECEIVED LITTLE SCRUTINY.

MICHAEL HAD BEEN WEARING A FAIRLY DARK SHIRT,

AND THERE WAS NO OBVIOUS BLOOD STAINS ON IT.

AND THE QUESTION WAS IF HE’D BEEN ATTACKING HER,

ONE WOULD HAVE EXPECTED CERTAIN BLOOD STAINS.

THEY SAID, "WHY DIDN’T YOU TEST HIS SHIRT?"

AND DEAVER ANSWERS, "WELL, IT WAS A DARK COLOR,

NAVY BLUE, AND YOU CAN’T SEE BLOOD

WITH YOUR NAKED EYE ON SUCH A DARK COLOR."

AND RUDOLPH FOLLOWED UP,

HE SAID, "WELL, THERE ARE SEVERAL TESTS YOU CAN DO.

DID YOU DO, FOR EXAMPLE, A LUMA TEST,

A SPECIFIC LIGHT THEY SHINE?"

AND DEAVER ULTIMATELY ADMITS HE DID DO SUCH A TEST.

Narrator: RUDOLF IS STUNNED.

WHEN DEAVER MENTIONS DOING A LIGHT TEST ON THE DARK SHIRT,

THIS IS THE FIRST TIME RUDOLF HEARS ABOUT IT.

THAT’S NEVER BEEN MENTIONED

IN ANY OF THE REPORTS THAT HE HAS.

SO IMMEDIATELY HE ASKS,

"WELL, DID YOU DO A REPORT ABOUT IT?"

-"YES." -"WELL, WHERE IS IT?"

"I GAVE IT TO THE PROSECUTORS."

PROSECUTORS DON’T WHERE THE REPORT IS.

THEY’VE NEVER SEEN IT.

DEFENSE ATTORNEY RUDOLF IS GENUINELY SHOCKED AT THIS NEWS.

HE SAYS, "WELL, WHAT WAS THE RESULT?"

"WELL," HE SAID, "I DIDN’T FIND ANY BLOOD SPATTER."

NOW IT STANDS TO REASON IF MICHAEL PETERSON

WAS STANDING OVER HIS WIFE AND BEATING HER,

THAT IN ADDITION TO THE BLOOD ON HIS SHORTS,

THERE WOULD BE BLOOD ON HIS SHIRT, TOO.

DEAVER DIDN’T HAVE AN ANSWER FOR IT.

AND NOT HAVING AN ANSWER ALWAYS MAKES YOU LOOK BAD.

Narrator: WHILE THE LINE OF QUESTIONING

IS BENEFICIAL TO RUDOLF’S ARGUMENT,

THE OMISSION OF THE TEST FROM THE COURT RECORD

OPENS A MASSIVE WINDOW FOR THE DEFENSE.

RUDOLF IS ENTITLED TO ANY REPORTS

THAT DEAVER’S DONE BEFORE HE TESTIFIES.

SO THIS IS WHAT’S CALLED A DISCOVERY VIOLATION.

THERE’S A RANGE OF SANCTIONS FOR A DISCOVERY VIOLATION.

THE ULTIMATE SANCTION BEING

STRIKING THE WITNESS’ TESTIMONY.

IF THE JUDGE STRIKES DUANE DEAVER’S TESTIMONY,

THE PROSECUTION’S CASE IS GOING TO FALL APART.

Narrator: OVER A MONTH INTO THE MICHAEL PETERSON TRIAL,

STATE BLOOD SPATTER EXPERT DUANE DEAVER

STANDS ACCUSED OF MISHANDLING KEY EVIDENCE.

DEAVER ADMITTED THAT HE TESTED THE SHIRT

OF MICHAEL PETERSON AND FOUND NO BLOOD SPATTER,

BUT THE DEFENSE NEVER GOT THAT REPORT.

AND THAT PROMPTED THE DEFENSE TO SUBMIT A MOTION

TO DISMISS ALL OF DEAVER’S TESTIMONY FROM THE TRIAL.

Dimond: THE JUDGE ULTIMATELY DECIDES THAT THIS WAS JUST

AN HONEST MISTAKE, AND DEAVER’S TESTIMONY STANDS.

Narrator: WITH THE BLOOD ANALYSIS BEHIND THEM,

THE PROSECUTION CALLS STATE MEDICAL EXAMINER

DR. DEBORAH RADISCH.

SHE TESTIFIES

TO KATHLEEN PETERSON’S TOXICOLOGY REPORT,

WHICH SHOWS TRACES OF VALIUM AND ALCOHOL.

HER BLOOD ALCOHOL WAS 0.7.

WITH THAT BLOOD ALCOHOL, SHE HAS NOT MET THE THRESHOLD

FOR IMPAIRED DRIVING IN THIS STATE.

SHE WAS NOT INTOXICATED.

SHE WAS NOT STUMBLING DRUNK,

AS MR. PETERSON ATTEMPTED TO PORTRAY HER.

Narrator: RADISCH THEN DETAILS

KATHLEEN’S EXTENSIVE INJURIES.

THEY ARE MOST CONSISTENT WITH THE TYPES OF INJURIES

YOU WOULD SEE IN ATTEMPTING TO FEND OFF AN ATTACK.

I THINK IT WOULD BE UNLIKELY TO OCCUR AS A RESULT OF A FALL.

DR. RADISCH ALSO TESTIFIED THAT IN KATHLEEN’S CLENCHED HANDS,

THERE WERE SEVERAL STRANDS OF HAIR.

DNA TESTS LATER DETERMINED THAT THOSE WERE HER OWN HAIRS.

NOW, THAT’S NOT THAT UNUSUAL WITH VICTIMS OF AN ASSAULT.

PROSECUTORS BELIEVE THAT IT’S POSSIBLE

WHILE MICHAEL WAS ATTACKING HIS WIFE,

SHE WAS CLUTCHING HER HEAD FOR PROTECTION.

Narrator: HARDIN THEN QUESTIONS RADISCH ABOUT HER CONCLUSIONS.

IN MY OPINION, THE MANNER OF DEATH

IN THIS CASE IS HOMICIDE.

Karas: NOW IT’S DAVID RUDOLF’S TURN TO GET UP

AND CROSS-EXAMINE DEBORAH RADISCH.

HE IMMEDIATELY BEGINS TO POKE HOLES

IN THE PROSECUTION’S THEORY ABOUT WHAT HAPPENED.

Maher: IF THERE WAS A FIGHT AND ANGER INVOLVED

AND MICHAEL STARTED ATTACKING KATHLEEN

WITH THE INTENT TO KILL HER, YOU WOULD EXPECT THERE

TO HAVE BEEN MORE DAMAGE, YOU KNOW,

SKULL FRACTURES, THINGS OF THAT NATURE.

AND THERE WEREN’T.

Karas: DEFENSE ATTORNEY DAVID RUDOLF

PULLS OUT A DOZEN BINDERS

FULL OF CASE DESCRIPTIONS,

257 FATAL BEATINGS

IN THE LAST DECADE IN NORTH CAROLINA.

RUDOLF WANTS TO KNOW HOW IS IT POSSIBLE

THAT THERE’S NO SKULL FRACTURE OR BRAIN TRAUMA

IN KATHLEEN PETERSON

WHEN 257 OTHER BLUNT-FORCE-TRAUMA CASES

HAVE ONE OR THE OTHER OR BOTH.

SHE DOESN’T HAVE AN ANSWER FOR THAT.

THIS IS THE WAY HE CHALLENGED HER CONCLUSION

THAT THIS WAS A HOMICIDE AND NOT AN ACCIDENT.

IT WAS VERY COMPELLING.

Narrator: THEN ON AUGUST 22nd, JUDGE ORLANDO HUDSON

ANNOUNCES A LONG-AWAITED AND CRITICAL DECISION.

HE DETERMINES THAT THE 1985 DEATH OF LIZ RATLIFF

WILL BE ADMISSIBLE IN THE PROSECUTION’S CASE.

Fanning: IT WAS A BATTLE THE PROSECUTORS WANT.

THEY OFTEN MADE COMMENTS TO THE EFFECT

LIGHTNING JUST DOESN’T STRIKE TWICE.

Narrator: WITH NO ADDITIONAL FORENSIC EVIDENCE

OF LIZ RATLIFF’S DEATH,

PROSECUTORS TURN TO EYEWITNESS TESTIMONY

AND CALL AMYBETH BERNER TO THE STAND.

Dimond: AMYBETH BERNER WAS ONE OF LIZ’S BEST FRIENDS.

AND SHE AND HER HUSBAND RUSHED TO THE SCENE THAT DAY.

BERNER TELLS THE JURY THE MOMENT SHE SAW HER FRIEND

CRUMPLED AT THE BOTTOM OF THAT STAIRWAY, SHE WAS SUSPICIOUS.

AMYBETH AND HER HUSBAND DECIDED RIGHT THERE AND THEN

THAT THEIR FRIEND LIZ HAD SUCCUMBED TO FOUL PLAY.

BUT THE QUESTION IS, WHO WOULD WANT TO HURT HER?

Narrator: BERNER EXPLAINS THAT AS THE TRAGEDY SUNK IN,

HER CONCERNS ABOUT MICHAEL WERE RAISED.

Fanning: MICHAEL CAME OVER TO THE HOUSE

AND HE WAS TAKING CHARGE OF THE SCENE,

ALMOST LIKE IT WAS HIS HOME.

AND WHEN MICHAEL PETERSON TOLD THEM THAT SHE HAD FALLEN

DOWN THE STAIRS, THEY PRETTY MUCH TOOK HIM AT HIS WORD.

Narrator: THE PROSECUTION THEN PRESENTS A LETTER

WRITTEN BY A NEIGHBOR OF LIZ RATLIFF IN GERMANY.

THERE WAS A WITNESS WHO SAW A MAN

RUNNING FROM THE HOUSE SOME TIME THE NIGHT BEFORE.

SHE COULD NEVER REALLY IDENTIFY WHO IT WAS.

BY EVERY ACCOUNT, IT APPEARS THAT MICHAEL PETERSON

WAS THE LAST PERSON TO SEE LIZ RATLIFF ALIVE.

Narrator: WHILE HARDIN DOESN’T EXPLICITLY

ACCUSE PETERSON OF KILLING ELIZABETH RATLIFF,

HE MAKES HIS POINT ABUNDANTLY CLEAR.

BOTH WOMEN HAD SEVEN DEEP GASH LACERATIONS

IN THE BACK OF THEIR SCALP.

BOTH WOMEN HAD DIED BY FALLING DOWN THE BOTTOM

OF A STAIRCASE AND BLEEDING TO DEATH.

AND OF COURSE, BOTH WOMEN,

THEIR CONNECTION WAS MICHAEL PETERSON.

THE TRIAL OF MICHAEL PETERSON, THE NORTH CAROLINA AUTHOR

ACCUSED OF MURDERING HIS WIFE, IS NOW IN ITS 12th WEEK.

AND IT CONTINUES TO BE AS COMPELLING

AS ANYTHING THE DEFENDANT COULD HAVE WRITTEN.

Narrator: MICHAEL PETERSON’S DEFENSE ATTORNEYS

ARE CHALLENGING THE STATE’S EVIDENCE

BY CALLING A WORLD-RENOWNED

BLOOD SPATTER EXPERT TO THE STAND.

DR. HENRY LEE IS A ROCK-STAR FORENSIC FELLOW.

HE IS BROUGHT IN TO STRENGTHEN MICHAEL PETERSON’S CASE

THAT THIS WAS JUST A TERRIBLE ACCIDENT.

DR. LEE BELIEVES THAT KATHLEEN FELL

AT LEAST A COUPLE OF TIMES, AND THAT THERE WERE

MULTIPLE IMPACTS THAT WOULD ACCOUNT FOR THE LACERATIONS.

Dimond: THE DEFENSE SAYS SHE’S FALLING, SHE’S THRASHING,

SHE’S CLUTCHING AT THE WALLS

AND SHE’S TRYING TO RIGHT HERSELF.

AND IN THOSE ACTIONS, SHE IS SPEWING HER BLOOD EVERYWHERE --

HIGH, LOW, ON THE STAIRS, ON HERSELF.

Narrator: LEE BELIEVES THERE MAY BE ANOTHER SOURCE

OF THE SPATTER FOUND ON THE WALLS.

IF YOU HAD CUT YOUR HEAD AND GOTTEN BLOOD IN YOUR MOUTH

AND WERE COUGHING, YOU WOULD BE APPLYING FORCE TO BLOOD,

AND IT WOULD CAUSE BLOOD SPATTER.

Narrator: TO ILLUSTRATE THE THEORY,

LEE PREPARES AN UNUSUAL DEMONSTRATION.

Dimond: DR. LEE PUT A BIG, WHITE POSTER BOARD

IN FRONT OF THE JURY

TO INDICATE TO THEM HOW ERRATIC BLOOD SPATTER COULD BE

FROM COUGHING OR SNEEZING.

RUDOLF IS HOLDING A WHITEBOARD.

HENRY LEE TAKES A SLUG OF KETCHUP

AND THEN SPITS IT OUT ONTO THE WHITEBOARD.

AND RUDOLF KIND OF GOT CAUGHT IN THE DEBRIS FIELD.

IT WAS A VERY DRAMATIC PRESENTATION.

I REMEMBER WATCHING THAT GOING, "OH, MY GOD."

THE SPATTER DID KIND OF LOOK LIKE SOME OF THE SPATTER

AT THE SCENE, SO HE MADE HIS POINT THAT IT’S POSSIBLE.

Narrator: NOW IT’S DISTRICT ATTORNEY JIM HARDIN’S TURN

TO QUESTION THE DEFENSE EXPERT.

HENRY LEE HAS TESTIFIED IN HUNDREDS OF CASES.

HE HAS SOME NOTE.

I READ EVERYTHING THAT I COULD POSSIBLY FIND

THAT HE HAD WRITTEN, SO I KNEW GENERALLY

HOW HE WAS GOING TO OPERATE.

Karas: D.A. HARDIN CROSS-EXAMINED HENRY LEE.

AND HE WANTED TO POKE HOLES IN HIS THEORY

THAT THIS IS AN ACCIDENT.

I MEAN, I GOT HIM TO A POINT WHERE, YOU KNOW, HE SAID,

"THIS IS WHAT I BELIEVE IT IS AND THIS IS MY OPINION."

"BUT CAN YOU EXCLUDE THAT THIS IS A BLUDGEONING DEATH?"

AND HE SAID, "NO."

BASICALLY CONCEDING THAT IT’S POSSIBLE IT WAS A HOMICIDE.

HOWEVER, DR. LEE MAINTAINS THAT THE SCENE TO HIM

LOOKED MORE LIKE AN ACCIDENT THAN A HOMICIDE.

Narrator: HARDIN THEN ASKS LEE WHAT EVIDENCE HE HAS

TO SUPPORT HIS BLOOD-SPATTER DEMONSTRATION.

Hardin Jr.: WELL, HE SAYS ALL THE BLOOD SPATTER ON THE WALL

WAS ASPIRATED FROM HER LUNGS AND HER MOUTH,

AND THAT’S WHAT CAUSED IT.

BUT THE AUTOPSY CLEARLY SHOWED THAT THERE

WAS NO BLOOD WHATSOEVER IN HER AIRWAY, NONE, ZERO.

SO THAT JUST COULDN’T HAVE HAPPENED.

Narrator: RUDOLF THEN CALLS ANOTHER EXPERT TO THE STAND.

THE DEFENSE NEEDED TO SUPPORT THEIR ACCIDENTAL FALL THEORY,

PARTICULARLY TRY TO EXPLAIN THE WOUNDS.

FARIS BANDAK, A BIOMEDICAL ENGINEER, COMES IN TO TESTIFY.

WE WANTED TO SEE IF -- IF A SCENARIO OF A FALL IS POSSIBLE,

AND IN FACT IF IT’S REALISTIC, AND IN FACT IF IT’S LIKELY.

AND SO WE DEVELOPED THIS SIMULATION.

Karas: HE, YOU KNOW, HAD A COUPLE OF SCENARIOS

OF HOW KATHLEEN COULD HAVE FALLEN ON THE STAIRS,

WHERE SHE WOULD HAVE IMPACTED, HIT HER HEAD.

AND SO HE’S OFFERING THE JURY A PLAUSIBLE THEORY.

Narrator: LINKING THE TESTIMONY OF HENRY LEE

AND FARIS BANDAK, THE DEFENSE ATTEMPTS

TO FULLY EXPLAIN EXACTLY HOW KATHLEEN DIED.

Dimond: THE DEFENSE THEORY OF WHAT HAPPENED

IS THAT KATHLEEN PETERSON OVERCELEBRATED

WITH HER HUSBAND THAT NIGHT,

HAD TOO MUCH TO DRINK, HAD A VALIUM IN HER SYSTEM.

AND WHEN SHE WENT INSIDE,

SHE HAD ON A PAIR OF FLIMSY FLIP-FLOPS.

AND WHEN SHE HIT THAT WINDY, DARK, NARROW BACK STAIRCASE,

SHE JUST SLIPPED AND FELL.

SHE PROBABLY LAY THERE AND BLED FOR A WHILE.

AND THEN SHE STOOD BACK UP AND TRIED AGAIN

TO GO UP THE STAIRS, AND SLIPPED IN HER OWN BLOOD,

AND THEN BLED OUT AT THE BOTTOM OF THE STAIRS.

Narrator: NEXT TIME, ON THE CONCLUSION

OF "AN AMERICAN MURDER MYSTERY: THE STAIRCASE"...

THERE WERE SO MANY REASONS TO STAY RIVETED TO THIS CASE.

IT HAD MANSIONS, MONEY, SEX, POWER, BETRAYAL.

Narrator: THE DEFENSE ENTERS A SURPRISING NEW EXHIBIT.

IT WAS SITTING IN A DARK BASEMENT,

COVERED WITH DEAD BUGS AND COBWEBS.

IT WAS THE "PERRY MASON" MOMENT.

Narrator: THE TRIAL BUILDS TO A MOMENTOUS CONCLUSION.

Judge Hudson: HAS THE JURY REACHED A UNANIMOUS VERDICT?

YOU COULD HEAR A PIN DROP.

Narrator: LATER, CONFOUNDING NEW EVIDENCE EMERGES...

PAGE FOUR, FIRST LAB REPORT, MICROSCOPIC FEATHERS.

IT’S POSSIBLE THIS WAS AN OWL ATTACK.

Narrator: A DISCREDITED WITNESS

THROWS THE VERDICT INTO QUESTION.

THE STATE’S BLOOD EXPERT IS A FRAUD.

IT WENT BACK TO SQUARE ONE.

MICHAEL PETERSON HAD A SHOT AT GETTING OFF.

Narrator: ...CULMINATING IN A FINAL FIERY SHOWDOWN.

THERE WAS NO TIP ON THAT BLOW POKE.

WHERE THE HECK WAS THE HOOK TIP?

I THINK IN THE BACK OF MY SISTER’S HEAD.