Original subtitles

Peterson: AS YOU GO ’ROUND, THERE’S THIS BACK STAIRCASE.

AND SHE WAS LYING ON THE BACK STAIRCASE.

AND THAT’S --

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

A NORTH CAROLINA NOVELIST IS AT THE CENTER

OF A FAMILY DRAMA THAT READS LIKE A MURDER MYSTERY.

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

Narrator: IN THE CONCLUSION OF OUR 3-PART INVESTIGATION,

THE PROSECUTION HAMMERS HOME ITS CASE.

THIS IS CALLED HARD-CORE PORN.

AND THAT’S NOT THE WAY THAT SOUL MATES CONDUCT THEMSELVES.

Narrator: THE DEFENSE UNVEILS A STUNNING NEW EXHIBIT.

DAVID RUDOLF PULLS OUT A LONG 4-FOOT OBJECT.

-THAT’S A BLOW POKE, ISN’T IT? -APPEARS TO BE.

IT WAS THE "PERRY MASON" MOMENT.

Narrator: CONFOUNDING EVIDENCE OF A GRIPPING NEW THEORY.

AH, THERE IT IS.

BLOODY FEATHER.

MAYBE THIS HAD BEEN DONE BY OWLS.

Narrator: AND AN INVESTIGATOR’S DAMNING SECRET.

ONE OF THE STAR WITNESSES WAS A BIG LIAR.

IT MIGHT SOUND CRAZY BUT COULD BE TRUE.

I DON’T KNOW WHAT HAPPENED.

BUT I KNOW THAT I DIDN’T KILL KATHLEEN.

I LOVED HER.

THERE’S THIS BACK STAIRCASE.

AND THAT’S --

WELL, THAT’S WHEN 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.

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

CAPTIONS PAID FOR BY DISCOVERY COMMUNICATIONS

Narrator: PROSECUTORS IN THE MICHAEL PETERSON MURDER TRIAL

HAVE PRESENTED COMPELLING EVIDENCE

THAT HE FATALLY ATTACKED HIS WIFE, KATHLEEN.

MY NAME’S JAMES E. HARDIN JR.

I WAS THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY

DURING THE PROSECUTION OF MICHAEL PETERSON.

KATHLEEN PETERSON WAS FOUND DEAD AT THE BOTTOM OF A SET OF STAIRS

WITH LACERATIONS ON THE BACK OF HER HEAD.

THERE WAS BLOOD EVERYWHERE.

IN MY MIND, THERE IS JUST NO QUESTION AT ALL.

THIS CAN’T BE AN ACCIDENT.

IT WAS A BLUDGEONING DEATH.

AND THAT MIKE PETERSON WAS THE PERSON THAT KILLED HER.

Narrator: BUT THE DEFENSE

HAS A FAR DIFFERENT EXPLANATION FOR KATHLEEN’S DEATH.

MY NAME IS THOMAS MAHER.

I’M ONE OF THE DEFENSE ATTORNEYS

WHO WORKED ON THE TRIAL FOR MICHAEL PETERSON.

THE PHYSICAL EVIDENCE WAS AT LEAST AS CONSISTENT

WITH AN ACCIDENTAL FALL AS WITH A MURDER.

IT WAS CLEAR FROM HER BLOOD ANALYSIS

THAT SHE HAD BEEN DRINKING AND TAKING VALIUM.

THAT WOULD HAVE MADE WALKING UP

NARROW, STEEP STAIRS POTENTIALLY DANGEROUS.

IF SHE’D SLIPPED AND FELL, THAT KIND OF LACERATION

PRODUCES A LOT OF BLEEDING.

Narrator: TO PRESS THEIR CASE, THE DEFENSE SETS OUT

TO UNDERMINE THE STATE’S PROPOSED MURDER WEAPON.

Fanning: CANDACE, KATHLEEN’S SISTER, TOLD THE PROSECUTORS

THAT SHE THINKS SHE KNOWS THE WEAPON

THAT WAS USED TO KILL HER SISTER.

IT WAS A BLOW POKE.

WELL, THERE WAS NO BLOW POKE IN THE HOUSE.

AND THE POLICE NEVER FOUND A MURDER WEAPON.

AT THE VERY BEGINNING OF THIS TRIAL,

PROSECUTOR HARDIN LOOKED AT THE JURY.

HE TOOK OUT THIS LONG POLE AND HE SAID,

"THIS IS A BLOW POKE, AND THIS IS WHAT WE THINK

WAS THE MURDER WEAPON ON KATHLEEN PETERSON.

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."

AND HE STARTED TO MOVE IT UP AND DOWN

AS IF ADMINISTERING A VICIOUS BEATING.

AND THAT’S WHAT THEY SAID KILLED

KATHLEEN PETERSON, A VICIOUS BEATING.

Narrator: RUDOLF CALLS

LEAD DETECTIVE ART HOLLAND TO THE STAND.

THEY WANT TO ASK HIM A QUESTION ABOUT THE MURDER WEAPON.

AND THEY SAY, "YOU NEVER FOUND THE MURDER WEAPON, RIGHT?

YOU BELIEVE IT WAS THE BLOW POKE

OR MAYBE SOMETHING CONSISTENT WITH IT."

"YEAH, THAT’S RIGHT."

AND HOLLAND SPECULATES THAT IT MUST HAVE BEEN

CARRIED AWAY FROM THE SCENE OR DESTROYED.

AND ALL OF A SUDDEN, DAVID RUDOLF PULLS OUT

A LONG 4-FOOT OBJECT IN PLASTIC,

AND HE HANDS IT TO ART HOLLAND.

-SEE THAT? -YES, SIR.

THAT’S A BLOW POKE, ISN’T IT?

IS THAT WHAT IT APPEARS TO BE?

IT APPEARS TO BE A BLOW POKE.

Narrator: ACCORDING TO RUDOLF,

IT WAS IN THE PETERSON HOME ALL ALONG.

IT WAS SITTING IN A DARK BASEMENT,

COVERED WITH DEAD BUGS AND COBWEBS.

Maher: I THINK IT WAS A SATURDAY NIGHT,

1:00 OR 2:00 IN THE MORNING.

I GOT THIS PHONE CALL FROM THE PETERSONS.

THEY THOUGHT THEY’D FOUND THE BLOW POKE,

AND I NEEDED TO DRIVE OUT TO THE HOUSE.

IN THE BASEMENT THAT WAS FAIRLY DARK,

AND THERE WAS A BLOW POKE LEANING UP AGAINST THE WALL.

AND I WILL SAY IF I WAS LOOKING TOO QUICKLY,

I WOULD HAVE SAID, "OH, THERE’S A SHOWER ROD."

Karas: THE SHAPE AND DIMENSION OF IT IS CONSISTENT

WITH THE BLOW POKE THAT CANDACE HAD GIVEN

HER SISTER KATHLEEN IN THE 1980s,

AND IT MATCHED.

PROSECUTORS WERE SHOCKED.

THEY HAD NO IDEA THIS WAS COMING.

IT WAS THE "PERRY MASON" MOMENT.

Karas: THE POLICE HAD SEARCHED THE PETERSON HOME

MULTIPLE TIMES, AND THEY NEVER FOUND IT.

BUT HERE IT WAS IN THE COURTROOM,

AND IT CLEARLY HAD COBWEBS AND BUGS ON IT.

WHEREVER IT WAS, IT HAD BEEN THERE FOR A WHILE.

A CRIMINALIST TESTED IT,

AND THERE’S NO EVIDENCE OF ANY BLOOD ON IT.

THERE’S NO BLOOD, THERE’S NO HAIR,

THERE ARE NO FINGERPRINTS.

THERE’S NOTHING OF FORENSIC VALUE ON THAT BLOW POKE.

FURTHER EVIDENCE, SAYS THE DEFENSE,

THAT THIS WAS AN ACCIDENT AND NOT MURDER.

THE QUESTION IS, WAS THAT BLOW POKE

ALWAYS IN THE PETERSONS’ GARAGE?

OR WAS IT STAGED?

DID THEY BUY ANOTHER BLOW POKE AND PLANT IT THERE

AND JUST LEAVE IT FOR MONTHS AND MONTHS,

SO IT LOOKED REAL OLD AND GRIMY AND COBWEB-Y?

OR WAS IT REALLY THEIR BLOW POKE ALL ALONG

AND THE STATE HAD IT WRONG?

Narrator: THE PROSECUTION, HOWEVER, POINTS TO A CRITICAL FEATURE

THAT THE DEFENSE’S EXHIBIT IS MISSING.

THE SHARP, SOLID TIP OF THE BLOW POKE,

WHICH IS HOW YOU MOVE THE WOOD AROUND, WAS GONE.

Dimond: THE PROSECUTION SAYS THAT THE CLAW ON IT

CAUSED THOSE HORRIBLE WOUNDS.

WELL, IF THAT’S THE BLOW POKE, WHERE’S THE TIP?

AND I SAY, "IT WAS IN THE BACK OF HER HEAD."

THEY DISPOSED OF THE TIP.

Hardin Jr.: FRANKLY, THE BLOW POKE THAT WAS BROUGHT

INTO THE COURTROOM, I DON’T BELIEVE WAS THE BLOW POKE

THAT HAD BEEN AT THAT HOUSE FOR MANY YEARS.

I BELIEVE THAT THE CREATIVE THINKER, MICHAEL PETERSON,

AND THOSE AROUND THE CREATIVE THINKER

WOULD HAVE THOUGHT THIS WOULD BE

A MARVELOUS WAY TO SABOTAGE THE STATE’S CASE.

Dimond: IT COULD HAVE BEEN A MAJOR BLOW TO THE PROSECUTION.

THE QUESTION IS, WHAT DID THE JURY THINK ABOUT IT?

Narrator: AFTER 54 DAYS OF TESTIMONY, THE DEFENSE RESTS.

FREDA BLACK THEN RISES

FOR THE PROSECUTION’S CLOSING STATEMENT,

AND BEGINS BY ATTACKING

THE DEFENSE’S NEWEST PIECE OF EVIDENCE.

Black: ALL OF A SUDDEN, WE FOUND THAT MISSING BLOW POKE.

WELL, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN,

FIRST OF ALL, WHAT HAPPENED TO THIS?

THERE’S BEEN NO EXPLANATION ABOUT THAT.

WHERE IS THE END OF IT?

SO I PUT IT TO YOU THAT DEFENSE’S EXHIBIT 280A

IS JUST A PIECE OF NOTHING, NOTHING.

CO-PROSECUTOR FREDA BLACK WAS A VISION TO BEHOLD IN COURT.

SHE REMINDED THE JURY ABOUT THE DEFENSE CONTENTION

THAT KATHLEEN KNEW ABOUT MICHAEL’S

BISEXUAL LIFESTYLE AND WAS OKAY WITH IT.

DO YOU REALLY BELIEVE THAT KATHLEEN KNEW

THAT MR. PETERSON WAS BISEXUAL?

DOES THAT MAKE COMMON SENSE TO YOU?

IT WAS OKAY FOR KATHLEEN TO BE SLEEPING

IN THEIR MARITAL BED WHILE MICHAEL PETERSON

IS AT THE COMPUTER E-MAILING FILTH, PURE FILTH.

THIS IS CALLED HARD-CORE PORN,

AND THAT’S NOT THE WAY THAT SOUL MATES CONDUCT THEMSELVES.

MICHAEL PETERSON IS GUILTY OF FIRST-DEGREE MURDER.

Narrator: NOW IT’S DAVID RUDOLF’S TURN

TO DEFEND HIS CLIENT ONE LAST TIME.

IN THE CLOSING ARGUMENT, DAVID RUDOLF TOLD THE JURY

ABOUT HIS TOP-10 LIST, LIKE A LETTERMAN TOP-10 LIST,

REASONS OF WHY HIS CLIENT COULD NOT BE GUILTY.

AT THE VERY TOP WAS, THE BLOW POKE IS NOT THE MURDER WEAPON.

THE MISSING MURDER WEAPON ISN’T MISSING,

AND IT WASN’T USED IN A MURDER.

REASONABLE DOUBT NUMBER TWO.

THERE IS NO CREDIBLE MOTIVE,

AND YOU DON’T JUST DECIDE TO KILL YOUR WIFE FOR NO REASON.

TESTIMONY ABOUT BISEXUALITY WAS MASQUERADING AS MOTIVE.

BUT WHAT IT REALLY WAS, WAS AN APPEAL TO BIAS.

THE GUY’S BISEXUAL?

THE GUY HAS PORNOGRAPHY ON HIS COMPUTER?

YUCK.

THAT EVIDENCE ADDED ABSOLUTELY NOTHING

TO THE MOTIVE IN THIS CASE.

I’VE SEEN A LOT OF DEFENSE ATTORNEYS.

DAVID RUDOLF WAS MASTERFUL IN PLANTING REASONABLE DOUBT.

WOULD IT BE ENOUGH?

Narrator: ONE OF THE LONGEST TRIALS

IN NORTH CAROLINA HISTORY IS IN THE HANDS OF THE JURY.

THERE’S NO QUESTION THAT THE JURORS

HAVE A LOT TO TALK ABOUT.

THIS IS GOING TO BE A CRAPSHOOT HERE.

IS THE CASE STRONG ENOUGH

TO CONVICT PETERSON OF FIRST-DEGREE MURDER?

WELL, THAT’S A BIG QUESTION FOR THIS JURY.

THE PROSECUTION, OF COURSE, SAYS IT’S MURDER.

THE DEFENSE SAYS IT WAS JUST A TRAGIC ACCIDENT.

REALLY THIS JURY HAS SUCH A DIFFICULT DECISION IN THIS CASE.

Narrator: JURY DELIBERATION IN THE CAPITAL TRIAL

OF MICHAEL PETERSON IS UNDER WAY.

MY NAME IS KELLI COLGAN,

AND I WAS A JUROR ON THE MICHAEL PETERSON CASE.

THE TRIAL WAS SO LONG.

YOU KNOW, WE HAD A LOT TO TALK ABOUT.

WE WERE IN A POSITION WHERE WE WANTED TO SHARE

AND JUST TALK AND GET IT ALL OUT.

I AM BETTYE BLACKWELL.

I WAS JUROR NUMBER FOUR ON THE MICHAEL PETERSON CASE.

THERE WERE SEVERAL JURORS WHO THOUGHT IT WAS AN ACCIDENT.

SOME OF US WERE HUNG UP ON ONE THING

THAT DIDN’T SEEM TO PHASE THE OTHERS.

Narrator: AFTER FOUR DAYS OF DELIBERATION,

THE JURY ANNOUNCES THEY’VE REACHED A VERDICT.

THE NATION HAS BEEN RIVETED WATCHING THIS.

BUT MOST IMPORTANTLY, THE DURHAM COMMUNITY

HAS BEEN LIVING WITH THIS CASE SINCE DECEMBER 9, 2001.

THIS IS A MOMENT THAT EVERYONE’S BEEN WAITING FOR.

THE COURTROOM IS PACKED.

YOU COULD HEAR A PIN DROP.

Dimond: THERE WAS PROBABLY NO ONE MORE ANXIOUS

THAN MICHAEL PETERSON HIMSELF.

HE’S FACING LIFE IN PRISON WITH NO POSSIBILITY OF PAROLE.

ALL RIGHT, MISS CLERK, IF YOU WILL TAKE THE VERDICT.

Clerk: STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA VERSUS MICHAEL IVER PETERSON,

WE THE 12 MEMBERS OF THE JURY UNANIMOUSLY

FIND THE DEFENDANT TO BE...

GUILTY OF FIRST-DEGREE MURDER.

UNDER NORTH CAROLINA LAW, IT’S A MANDATORY SENTENCE.

THE JUDGE HAS NO DISCRETION IN THIS.

AND SO HE IS TOLD RIGHT THEN AND THERE.

Judge Hudson: THE DEFENDANT IS IMPRISONED

IN THE NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

FOR THE REMAINDER OF HIS NATURAL LIFE

WITHOUT THE BENEFIT OF PAROLE.

IT TOOK US A WHOLE LOT OF TIME TO DO IT,

IT TOOK A WHOLE LOT OF MONEY TO DO IT.

BUT THE BOTTOM LINE IS,

THIS IS THE WAY AMERICAN JUSTICE WORKS.

Dimond: MICHAEL PETERSON IS STOIC.

YOU DON’T SEE ANY EMOTION ON HIS FACE.

THE JUDGE ASKED IF HE HAD ANYTHING TO SAY TO THE COURT.

I DON’T KNOW WHAT TO SAY.

AND HE TURNED HIS BACK ON THE JUDGE AND HE LOOKED

AT HIS FOUR CHILDREN SITTING DIRECTLY BEHIND HIM.

MICHAEL PETERSON’S CHILDREN WERE SOBBING.

HE WAS TELLING THEM EVERYTHING WOULD BE OKAY.

Dimond: IT WAS PROBABLY A SHOW

TO BUCK UP HIS CHILDREN, WHO ARE DEVASTATED.

Fanning: ON THE OTHER SIDE,

CAITLIN COULD HARDLY BELIEVE IT WAS TRUE.

THEY GOT JUSTICE.

Narrator: NEWS OF THE VERDICT STIRS A RANGE OF EMOTIONS.

UNBELIEVABLE.

MICHAEL IS ONE OF THE MOST WONDERFUL PEOPLE

I HAVE EVER MET.

HE WOULD NEVER HURT ANYONE.

I THINK THAT THIS VERDICT SHOWS THAT WE ARE NOT IDIOTS,

THAT WE KNOW HOW TO DO OUR JOB, AND THAT WE DO IT WELL.

THERE WAS REASONABLE DOUBT IN THIS CASE

IN EVERY WAY YOU COULD THINK OF.

AND I’M VERY, VERY DISAPPOINTED

THAT THE JURY DIDN’T SEE THAT.

THIS 2-YEAR SAGA THAT HAS EMBROILED

THE LOCAL AND NATIONAL MEDIA HAS FINALLY COME TO A CLOSE.

HE’S TAKEN TO NASH CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION,

IT’S A MEDIUM-SECURITY PRISON IN NORTH CAROLINA,

TO SERVE OUT HIS SENTENCE.

ALL FOUR OF HIS CHILDREN CONTINUE TO SUPPORT HIM.

THEY BELIEVED

WHAT MICHAEL PETERSON WAS TELLING THEM,

THAT HE IS COMPLETELY INNOCENT.

THERE’S JUST SO MANY UNANSWERED QUESTIONS IN THIS CASE.

WHAT WAS THE REAL MURDER WEAPON?

IF SHE WAS MURDERED, WHAT KILLED HER?

Narrator: THEN IN 2009, PETERSON CONDUCTS AN INTERVIEW

FROM BEHIND BARS IN ATTEMPTS TO ADDRESS

SOME OF THE LINGERING QUESTIONS,

BEGINNING WITH WHAT HAPPENED THE NIGHT KATHLEEN DIED.

Man: MARK IT.

Peterson: WE WENT OUT BY THE POOL.

IT WAS A VERY -- I WAS WEARING SHORTS.

IT WAS A VERY NICE NIGHT.

AND WE TALKED.

IT WAS JUST A BEAUTIFUL, BEAUTIFUL, BEAUTIFUL NIGHT.

AGAIN, I COULDN’T TELL YOU THE TIME.

LET’S SAY 30 MINUTES, 40 MINUTES LATER,

SHE WENT IN THE HOUSE.

I STAYED OUT THERE WITH THE DOGS FOR A WHILE.

AND THEN I WENT IN THE HOUSE.

AND THEN AS YOU GO ’ROUND, THERE’S THIS BACK STAIRCASE.

AND SHE WAS LYING ON THE BACK STAIRCASE.

AND THAT’S --

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

SHE WAS THERE, AND THERE WAS JUST --

THERE WAS -- THERE WAS JUST BLOOD.

BUT, YOU KNOW, THAT WAS NOT WHAT I FOCUSED ON.

SHE WAS JUST AT THE BOTTOM OF THE STAIRCASE.

AND I WENT, YOU KNOW, "OH, MY GOD."

I PICKED HER UP.

SHE WAS DYING, THERE WAS JUST NO QUESTION.

AND I CALLED 911.

I DON’T REMEMBER WHAT I SAID, BUT I’M THINKING,

YOU KNOW, IF YOU FIND YOUR WIFE AT THE BOTTOM OF THE STAIRS

AND SOMEBODY SAYS WHAT HAPPENS...

SHE FELL DOWN.

THAT WAS MY ASSUMPTION, THAT SHE FELL DOWN.

I KNOW I’M NOT GUILTY.

I KNOW I DIDN’T HURT KATHLEEN.

IT’S VERY DIFFICULT FOR ME TO ACCEPT THE FACT

THAT I AM A PRISONER, A CONVICTED MURDERER.

IT’S JUST NONSENSE.

BUT IT’S REAL, I UNDERSTAND THAT.

I KNOW WHAT HAPPENED, THAT I DIDN’T DO IT.

I DON’T KNOW WHAT HAPPENED,

BUT I KNOW THAT I DIDN’T KILL KATHLEEN.

I LOVED HER.

AND I KNOW I DIDN’T KILL LIZ. THAT’S RIDICULOUS.

SO...[ SIGHS ]

AND I GUESS BASICALLY STILL IN MY HEART AND MIND,

I’D LIKE TO BELIEVE KATHLEEN FELL DOWN THE STAIRS.

BUT NOBODY BUYS THAT ONE, EXCEPT MAYBE

I’M THE LAST HOLD-OUT FOR THAT, AND I DON’T KNOW.

Narrator: WHILE PETERSON LANGUISHES IN PRISON,

HIS FAMILY AND HIS LAWYERS ARE HARD AT WORK.

PETERSON’S TEAM IS AGGRESSIVELY LOOKING FOR NEW EVIDENCE,

EVIDENCE THAT THEY CAN BRING BEFORE THE COURT

AND ARGUE HE DESERVES A NEW TRIAL.

THE DEFENSE HAS FILED SEVERAL APPEALS,

AND THEY’VE LOST AT EVERY STEP OF THE WAY.

Narrator: THEN IN 2009,

HIS LAWYERS CATCH WIND OF CONFOUNDING NEW EVIDENCE.

PAGE FOUR, FIRST LAB REPORT, MICROSCOPIC FEATHERS.

I GOT A HUNCH THAT MAYBE THIS HAD BEEN DONE BY OWLS.

Narrator: IN 2009,

MICHAEL PETERSON’S APPELLATE ATTORNEYS

LEARN OF A NEW THEORY THAT COULD EXPLAIN

HIS WIFE, KATHLEEN’S, DEATH.

IT ORIGINATES FROM A FELLOW DURHAM LAWYER

WHO KNOWS THE PETERSONS WELL.

MY NAME IS LARRY POLLARD.

I AM THE FORMER NEXT-DOOR NEIGHBOR OF MICHAEL PETERSON.

DURING THE INVESTIGATION PERIOD

AND DURING THE PREPARATION FOR TRIAL,

THERE SEEMED TO BE A LOT OF QUESTIONS

IN EVERYONE’S MIND AS TO WHAT HAPPENED.

SOMETHING JUST DIDN’T SIT WELL WITH ME.

SOMETHING DID NOT SEEM RIGHT.

I STARTED OUT IN MY CAREER AS A CRIMINAL LAWYER.

I FELT PARTICULARLY STRONGLY THAT I HAD A MORAL, LEGAL,

AND ETHICAL RESPONSIBILITY AND DUTY TO FIND THE TRUTH.

AND THAT’S WHAT I’VE BEEN LOOKING FOR

EVER SINCE THIS HAPPENED.

I WAS SITTING RIGHT HERE AT THIS DESK

WHEN IT WAS GOING TO TRIAL.

AND THE SECRETARY SAID,

"LARRY, HAVE YOU SEEN THE AUTOPSY REPORT?"

I SAID, "NO."

AND SHE SAID, "WELL, YOU MIGHT WANT TO LOOK AT IT."

AND SHE HANDED ME THE AUTOPSY REPORT.

FIRST THING THAT JUMPED OFF THE PAGE TO ME

WAS WHAT THE MEDICAL EXAMINER HAD WRITTEN ON THE DIAGRAM.

IT SHOWED VERY CLEARLY THAT SOME OF THE WOUNDS

HAVE ALMOST THE SAME MEASUREMENT,

0.25 INCHES IN DIAMETER.

THAT CAUGHT MY EYE IMMEDIATELY BECAUSE I THOUGHT

IT WAS IMPOSSIBLE TO TAKE A 5-FOOT BLOW POKE

AND HIT SOMEBODY OVER THE HEAD

AND GET DISTINCT LACERATIONS OF THE SAME MEASUREMENT.

EVEN THE FINEST SURGEONS IN THE WORLD

COULDN’T MAKE THOSE KIND OF CUTS.

Narrator: AN INTRIGUED POLLARD DIGS DEEPER INTO THE CASE FILE.

HE WAS READING THE EVIDENCE LIST ONLINE,

AND SOMETHING CAUGHT HIS EYE.

IN HER LEFT HAND WERE STRANDS OF HER OWN HAIR.

PROSECUTORS BELIEVE SHE PROBABLY

WAS CLUTCHING HER HEAD WHEN SHE WAS BEING ATTACKED.

Narrator: AS HE CONTINUES TO READ,

POLLARD FINDS SOMETHING CONFOUNDING.

Pollard: THE SBI ANALYZED ALL OF THE HAIRS.

THEY PULL ONE HEAD HAIR OUT, THEY LOOK AT IT,

"AH, THERE IT IS, BLOODY FEATHER."

IN THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE, PAGE FOUR, FIRST LAB REPORT.

Narrator: THROUGH CONTACTS

AT THE STATE BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION,

POLLARD EXAMINES THE EVIDENCE IN QUESTION.

WE TOOK THAT SLIDE AND HAD PICTURES MADE

WITH A MICROSCOPIC CAMERA, 400 POWER.

AND WE FOUND THE FEATHER WRAPPED AROUND MRS. PETERSON’S

HAIR SHAFT WITH FRESH DROPLETS OF BLOOD ON TOP OF IT.

WHEN I SAW THAT, I SAID, "OH, MY, I’VE GOT A HUNCH

THAT MAYBE THIS HAD BEEN DONE BY OWLS."

[ SCREECHING ]

THEY ARE SOME OF THE ONLY SPECIES OF BIRDS

IN THE WORLD THAT HAVE MICROSCOPIC FEATHERS.

THEY GO ALL THE WAY DOWN THEIR LEGS,

ACROSS THEIR FEET, TO THE TALONS.

Narrator: AS HE LEARNS MORE ABOUT THE SPECIES,

POLLARD’S SUSPICIONS ARE CONFIRMED.

WHEN IT GRIPS, IT’S GRIPPING AT ABOUT 280 POUNDS

OF PRESSURE ON THESE NEEDLEPOINT TALONS.

YOU CANNOT TOUCH THOSE TALONS WITHOUT THINKING,

"OH, MY GOD, THESE COULD VERY EASILY

HAVE CAUSED THIS LACERATIONS ON HER HEAD,

WHICH SHE BLED TO DEATH FROM."

LOOK AT THE LACERATIONS ON HER HEAD.

IT LOOKS LIKE A PITCHFORK SORT OF A FORM.

DOESN’T THAT LOOK LIKE IT COULD BE A TALON?

AND THAT WOULD EXPLAIN EVERYTHING.

Narrator: COMBINING ALL OF THE EVIDENCE,

POLLARD FORMULATES HIS THEORY OF WHAT HAPPENED

TO KATHLEEN THAT MILD DECEMBER NIGHT.

I THINK THAT MRS. PETERSON WALKED DOWN

THE FRONT PATIO OF THE HOUSE, AND ON THE WAY BACK IN,

SHE GETS HIT BY AN OWL FROM BEHIND.

BAM.

BACK RIGHT CORNER OF THE HEAD,

WHERE 90% OF ALL OWL STRIKES TO HUMAN BEINGS ARE.

SHE GOT SERIOUS LACERATIONS, SEVEN TO EIGHT BEING EXACT.

AND SHE RAN INTO THE SAFETY OF HER OWN HOUSE.

PULLS HER HANDS DOWN FROM HER HEAD,

SHE’S BLEEDING LIKE A STUCK PIG,

AND ALL OF THE BLOOD IS GOING INTO HER HAIR.

Dimond: I MEAN, CAN YOU IMAGINE, IF YOU’RE WALKING UP

A DARK, NARROW STAIRWAY AND YOU’VE JUST BEEN ATTACKED

BY A OWL, AND YOU’VE HAD A LOT TO DRINK

AND A VALIUM IN YOUR SYSTEM

AND YOU’RE TRYING TO STUMBLE UPSTAIRS TO CLEAN YOURSELF UP,

IT DOESN’T TAKE A LOT OF IMAGINATION TO FIGURE

THAT YOU COULD SLIP AND FALL IN YOUR OWN BLOOD.

SEVERAL ORNITHOLOGISTS EXAMINED POLLARD’S FINDINGS

AND AGREED THAT IT’S POSSIBLE THIS WAS AN OWL ATTACK.

BELIEVE IT OR NOT, IN THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA,

THAT’S NOT THAT UNUSUAL.

THERE ARE ONE OR TWO CASES IN DIFFERENT JURISDICTIONS

WHERE PEOPLE SAY THAT AN OWL ATTACKED AND KILLED SOME VICTIM.

IF IT WAS DONE BY A BIRD,

IT DOESN’T MEET THE DEFINITION OF A HOMICIDE.

SO THEREFORE ON ALL LEGS, THIS CASE SHOULD BE DISMISSED.

Dimond: POLLARD WROTE A LETTER TO THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY,

SAYING YOU’VE GOT TO REOPEN THIS CASE.

THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY JUST POOH -POOHED IT AND SAID

IT WAS COMPLETE FOOLISHNESS, AND IT WENT ABSOLUTELY NOWHERE.

AND THERE ARE SOME PEOPLE IN THE COMMUNITY

THAT STILL THINK IT’S A VIABLE EXPLANATION TO HER DEATH.

DEATH BY OWL.

IT MIGHT SOUND CRAZY, BUT COULD BE TRUE.

[ OWL HOOTING ]

Narrator: THEN IN 2010, NEWS OF AN UNRELATED MURDER CASE

CATCHES THE ATTENTION OF PETERSON’S LAWYERS.

AS THEY LEARN MORE, THEY DISCOVER THAT THE FATE

OF MICHAEL PETERSON COULD BE INTERTWINED

WITH ANOTHER CONVICTED KILLER

WHO ALSO CLAIMS THAT HE’S INNOCENT.

MY NAME’S JOE NEFF.

I’M AN INVESTIGATIVE REPORTER AND I WORK HERE IN DURHAM.

BACK IN SEPTEMBER OF 1991, A WOMAN WAS FOUND MURDERED

IN A KIND OF REMOTE CUL-DE-SAC IN RALEIGH.

FARTHER DOWN THE STREET, A COUPLE OF HUNDRED FEET AWAY,

THERE WAS A TRUCK STUCK IN THE MUD.

IT WAS GREG TAYLOR’S TRUCK.

NEXT DAY HE COMES BACK TO GET THE TRUCK.

CRIME-SCENE TAPE ALL AROUND THE PLACE.

POLICE SAY, "WHAT ARE YOU DOING HERE?"

HE SAYS, "I’M COMING TO PICK UP MY TRUCK."

Narrator: THE 28-YEAR-OLD TAYLOR EXPLAINS

THAT THE PREVIOUS EVENING, HE AND A FRIEND WERE ON A BENDER.

Darrow: GREGORY TAYLOR WAS A DRUG ADDICT.

HE WAS WITH A FRIEND.

BOTH OF THEM WERE USING DRUGS.

HE SAID, "YEAH, MY FRIEND AND I WERE OUT,

WE WERE DRINKING. WE WERE SMOKING CRACK."

HE STARTED DRIVING OFF ROAD,

AND IT GOT STUCK IN THE MUD.

HE ABANDONED HIS TRUCK THAT NIGHT.

SO YOU HAVE GREG TAYLOR’S TRUCK

STUCK NEAR A WOMAN WHO WAS MURDERED.

POLICE SAY, ’WELL, LET’S START QUESTIONING YOU AS A SUSPECT."

Karas: AND THEY BRING HIM DOWN THE STATION,

AND THEY TALK TO HIM.

AND HE’S LIKE, "I DIDN’T DO THIS."

BUT THEY’RE CONVINCED THAT HE WAS LYING.

AND SO THEY ARREST HIM.

GREGORY TAYLOR’S CHARGED WITH FIRST-DEGREE MURDER.

Narrator: IN 1993, TAYLOR’S TRIAL BEGINS

AND THE PROSECUTION LAYS OUT THEIR CASE AGAINST HIM.

AT GREG TAYLOR’S TRIAL, THERE IS ONE PIECE

OF PHYSICAL EVIDENCE CONNECTING HIM TO THE CRIME.

Karas: NOW, AMONG THE EVIDENCE

IS SOME SUSPICIOUS SUBSTANCE FOUND ON TAYLOR’S TRUCK.

AN SBI AGENT WROTE UP A BLOOD-SPATTER REPORT

AND A CRIME SCENE ANALYSIS.

AND THE REPORT SAID THE PRELIMINARY TEST

SHOWED THAT THERE WERE CHEMICAL INDICATIONS OF BLOOD.

THE POLICE DETECTIVE WHO TESTIFIED TOOK THAT REPORT

AND SAID, "THIS WAS BLOOD."

THERE WASN’T ANY OTHER EVIDENCE AGAINST GREG TAYLOR.

Narrator: AFTER ONLY SIX DAYS OF WITNESS TESTIMONY

AND A BRIEF DELIBERATION, THE JURY HANDS DOWN A VERDICT.

HE’S CONVICTED AND HE’S SENTENCED TO LIFE.

AND HE IS SHATTERED.

THIS MAN SAYS, "I’M INNOCENT. WHAT ARE YOU DOING?"

GREGORY TAYLOR ALWAYS DENIED HIS GUILT.

HE HAD AN IMPECCABLE RECORD IN PRISON.

HE NEVER HAD AN INFRACTION.

AND HE WENT TO CLASSES AND HE STUDIED.

HE CONTINUES TO WORK DILIGENTLY

TO UNCOVER NEW EVIDENCE SO HE CAN GET A NEW TRIAL.

Narrator: THEN HIS SPIRITS ARE LIFTED IN 2008

WHEN HE LEARNS OF A NEW STATE ORGANIZATION.

Neff: INNOCENCE INQUIRY COMMISSION

IS ONE OF A KIND IN THE UNITED STATES.

IT’S A GOVERNMENT AGENCY SET UP TO EXAMINE CLAIMS OF INNOCENCE.

TAYLOR APPLIED TO THIS NEW AGENCY.

Narrator: THE COMMISSION AGREES TO REVIEW TAYLOR’S CASE,

AND THEY ARE EMPOWERED TO DIG DEEP.

WHEN TAYLOR’S TEAM OF LAWYERS EXAMINES THE CASE FILE,

THEY’RE ABSOLUTELY FLOORED BY WHAT THEY FIND.

Narrator: IN TAYLOR’S RECORDS, THEY UNCOVER

FORENSIC EVIDENCE THAT THEY BELIEVE PROVES HIS INNOCENCE.

THE BLOOD EXPERT FOR THE STATE CONCLUDES

THAT BLOOD WAS FOUND ON AND UNDER HIS TRUCK.

IT TURNED OUT IT WASN’T BLOOD AT ALL,

AND THE BLOOD EXPERT WAS DUANE DEAVER.

Karas: THE SAME TECHNICIAN WHO TESTIFIED

AT MICHAEL PETERSON’S TRIAL.

HE DID EXPERIMENTS WITH THE LADDER

AND THE BLOODY SPONGE AND THE MANNEQUIN HEAD.

THIS IS A MAJOR EVENT.

Karas: ONE OF THE STAR WITNESSES

FOR THE PROSECUTION WAS A BIG LIAR.

WHAT’S GOING ON?

Narrator: LAWYERS WORKING ON BEHALF OF GREGORY TAYLOR

HAVE UNCOVERED PROOF THAT HE WAS CONVICTED

WITH FALSIFIED EVIDENCE PREPARED

BY SBI BLOOD SPECIALIST DUANE DEAVER,

THE SAME EXPERT THAT GAVE CRITICAL TESTIMONY

AT THE TRIAL OF MICHAEL PETERSON.

THERE IS ONE PIECE OF PHYSICAL EVIDENCE

CONNECTING GREG TAYLOR TO THE CRIME.

IT WAS A SPOT ON HIS TRUCK

THAT DUANE DEAVER TESTED AND FILED A REPORT.

THE REPORT SAID, "I TESTED THIS SPOT

AND IT GIVES CHEMICAL INDICATIONS OF BLOOD."

AND WHAT CAME OUT DURING THE INNOCENCE INQUIRY COMMISSION

WAS THAT DEAVER RAN A MORE SPECIFIC TEST,

IS THIS HUMAN BLOOD?

IT CAME BACK NEGATIVE.

HE DID NOT PUT THAT IN HIS LAB REPORT,

AND AS A RESULT, THE AGENT WHO TESTIFIED

RELYING ON HIS REPORT TESTIFIED THAT IT WAS BLOOD.

Karas: IT WASN’T HUMAN BLOOD AT ALL,

YET JURORS WERE LED TO BELIEVE THAT NOT ONLY WAS IT BLOOD,

BUT IT WAS THE VICTIM’S BLOOD ON THE TRUCK.

WHEN THAT EVIDENCE CAME TO LIGHT,

GREGORY TAYLOR GOT A HEARING

BEFORE A THREE-JUDGE COMMISSION.

Narrator: TAYLOR’S LAWYERS WILL PRESENT EVIDENCE

BEFORE THE PANEL,

WHO IN TURN WILL VOTE TO UPHOLD OR OVERTURN HIS CONVICTION.

DUANE DEAVER IS CALLED TO THE STAND

DURING THIS EXONERATION HEARING.

Dimond: UNDER QUESTIONING, DUANE DEAVER

FINALLY WILL PROVIDE SOME ANSWERS.

Man #2: SO ANYONE READING YOUR FORMAL REPORT

WOULD NOT HAVE KNOWN THAT YOU COULD NOT

SCIENTIFICALLY CONFIRM THAT WAS BLOOD?

THAT’S CORRECT.

I CAN’T SAY WITH SCIENTIFIC CERTAINTY

THAT THAT WAS BLOOD.

WHEN PRESSED, DEAVER EXPLAINS

THAT WITHHOLDING A NEGATIVE RESULT

IS COMMON PRACTICE AT THE SBI.

DUANE DEAVER SAYS, "YES, THAT WAS THE POLICY.

WE WOULDN’T PUT THE FINAL RESULTS IN

IF THEY WERE NEGATIVE."

HOW CAN A SCIENTIST, A NEUTRAL FINDER OF FACT

NOT REPORT ALL THE RESULTS OF ALL THEIR TESTS?

THAT REALLY RAISED A RED FLAG.

Narrator: ON FEBRUARY 17, 2010,

THE THREE-JUDGE PANEL MAKES ITS RULING.

Man #3: THE DECISION, JUDGE HOWARD E. MANNING JR.

RULES THAT GREGORY F. TAYLOR IS INNOCENT

OF THE CHARGE OF FIRST-DEGREE MURDER.

[ EXCLAIMING ]

THE CHARGE OF FIRST-DEGREE MURDER

OF JACQUETTA THOMAS ON SEPTEMBER 26, 1991,

IS DISMISSED.

[ CHEERS AND APPLAUSE ]

UNBELIEVABLE, ALL THESE YEARS,

WHAT THIS DAY WOULD BE LIKE.

6,149 DAYS AND FINALLY THE TRUTH HAS PREVAILED.

Narrator: NEWS OF THE COMMISSION’S FINDING

AND THE TESTIMONY OF SBI AGENT DUANE DEAVER

SENDS SHOCKWAVES THROUGH NORTH CAROLINA.

ATTORNEY GENERAL ROY COOPER ORDERS A MASSIVE REVIEW

OF 15,000 SBI CRIME-LAB CASES INVOLVING BLOOD ANALYSIS

FROM 1987 TO 2003.

THE REPORT FINDS THAT HUNDREDS OF CASES WERE MISHANDLED,

BUT A FEW IN PARTICULAR STAND OUT.

THERE ARE FIVE EXAMPLES THAT THE REPORT CLASSIFIED

AS THE MOST SERIOUS VIOLATIONS.

ALL FIVE WERE CASES THAT DUANE DEAVER HANDLED.

Karas: WITHOUT DUANE DEAVER’S TESTIMONY,

THE JURY WOULDN’T HAVE CONVICTED MICHAEL PETERSON.

Dimond: WHEN THE STATE’S BLOOD EXPERT IS REPUDIATED,

DAVID RUDOLPH JUMPED ON THAT.

HE GOES BACK TO THE JUDGE AND DEMANDS A NEW TRIAL,

ON THE GROUNDS THAT DUANE DEAVER IS A FRAUD.

MY NAME IS MARY JUDE DARROW.

I WAS ONE OF THE ATTORNEYS

REPRESENTING MICHAEL PETERSON AFTER HIS CONVICTION.

THEY PULLED BACK ALL THE LAB REPORTS.

THEY PULLED BACK ALL THE TRANSCRIPTS

OF DUANE DEAVER’S TESTIMONY,

AND JUST STARTED CHALLENGING EVERYTHING HE SAID.

Karas: THEY DISCOVERED THAT DUANE DEAVER

EXAGGERATED HIS EXPERIENCE.

HE HAS REPEATEDLY TESTIFIED

THAT HE HAD BEEN INVOLVED WITH 500 CASES,

BUT THE RECORDS SHOWED THAT THERE WERE ONLY 54.

HE HAD WAY OVERBLOWN HIS CREDENTIALS AND HIS EXPERIENCE.

THAT WOULD’VE BEEN GOOD FOR THE JURY TO KNOW AT THE TIME.

MR. RUDOLPH WAS ABLE TO CONVINCE THE COURT

THAT MR. DEAVER HAD COMMITTED PERJURY.

Narrator: ON DECEMBER 14, 2011,

JUDGE HUDSON RENDERS HIS DECISION.

Reporter #2: BOTH TEARS AND HUGS FILLED THE COURTROOM

MOMENTS AFTER JUDGE ORLANDO HUDSON

GRANTED CONVICTED MURDERER MICHAEL PETERSON A NEW TRIAL.

THIS IS REALLY SHOCKING NEWS.

MICHAEL PETERSON HAD A SHOT AT GETTING OFF.

Narrator: EIGHT YEARS AFTER HIS CONVICTION,

68-YEAR-OLD MICHAEL PETERSON IS GRANTED A NEW TRIAL

AND IS RELEASED ON BOND.

I HAVE WAITED OVER EIGHT YEARS FOR AN OPPORTUNITY

TO HAVE A RETRIAL SO THAT I CAN VINDICATE MYSELF

AND PROVE MY INNOCENCE IN A FAIR TRIAL THIS TIME.

Hunt Zamperini: SO, WHEN WE FOUND OUT

THAT THERE WAS GOING TO BE ANOTHER TRIAL,

IT REALLY SET ME BACK ON MY HEELS.

LIKE, "OH, WOW, I’M GOING TO REALLY HAVE TO

RELIVE THIS INTENSELY AGAIN."

IT REALLY WAS CAUSING ME A LOT OF EMOTIONAL PAIN.

Narrator: A TRIAL DATE IS SET FOR MAY OF 2017,

AND A NEW PROSECUTION TEAM TAKES OVER THE CASE.

IT’S SOON DISCOVERED THAT THEY FACE AN UPHILL BATTLE.

AT THAT NEW TRIAL, THERE’S NO GUARANTEE

THAT LIZ RATLIFF’S DEATH

IS GONNA BE ALLOWED IN THIS TIME AROUND,

OR HIS BISEXUAL LIFESTYLE,

AND THE TESTIMONY OF DUANE DEAVER IS GONE.

Darrow: DEAVER’S TESTIMONY WAS VERY DAMAGING

AT THE FIRST TRIAL.

WITHOUT HIM, THE STATE WAS GOING TO HAVE

A VERY, VERY DIFFICULT TIME IN A SECOND TRIAL.

Narrator: AS THE STATE SORTS THROUGH THE CASE FILE,

THEY ENCOUNTER ANOTHER CRUSHING BLOW.

Reporter #3: PICTURES TAKEN LAST DECEMBER OF EVIDENCE

FROM THE MIKE PETERSON CASE

SHOWS PACKAGES HAD BEEN RIPPED OPEN.

Dimond: THE EVIDENCE HAS BEEN MISHANDLED.

SPECIFICALLY THE CLOTHES HIS WIFE WAS WEARING,

AND THE CLOTHES HE WAS WEARING THE NIGHT OF THE DEATH.

Darrow: YOU HAD DNA CONTAMINATION,

THAT’S NOT GOOD BECAUSE IT BARRED THE DEFENSE

FROM BEING ABLE TO HAVE THOSE CLOTHES TESTED AGAIN

OUTSIDE OF THE CONTROL OF DUANE DEAVER.

Dimond: SO THE STATE NOW HAS A DILEMMA, WHAT DO THEY DO?

CAN THEY GO FORWARD AND TRY MICHAEL PETERSON AGAIN?

HE PROBABLY HAD A SHOT AT GETTING OFF.

Narrator: FACING A WEAKENED CASE

AND A POTENTIALLY HIGH-PROFILE ACQUITTAL,

PROSECUTORS MAKE A CONTROVERSIAL DECISION.

THEY OFFER MICHAEL PETERSON WHAT’S CALLED AN ALFORD PLEA.

Darrow: AN ALFORD PLEA IS WHEN A PERSON GOES INTO COURT

AND ACCEPTS THAT THEY ARE GIVING UP THEIR RIGHTS TO A TRIAL

AND ACCEPTS PUNISHMENT FOR THE CRIME CHARGED.

HOWEVER, WITH THE ALFORD PLEA,

THE DEFENDANT DOES NOT SAY, "I’M GUILTY."

MICHAEL PETERSON HAD ALREADY DONE EIGHT YEARS IN PRISON,

AND THAT WAS MORE THAN ENOUGH TIME

FOR A MANSLAUGHTER CONVICTION.

Gasparoli: IT WAS A PLEA DEAL, TIME SERVED.

WE’RE GONNA PUT A GUILTY VERDICT ON YOUR RECORD.

YOU’RE A CONVICTED FELON

IN CONNECTION WITH THE DEATH OF KATHLEEN PETERSON,

BUT YOU’RE FREE TO GO.

Dimond: SINCE HIS ARREST,

MICHAEL PETERSON HAS BEEN CONSISTENT.

HE HAS TOLD EVERYONE THAT HE IS INNOCENT

AND HE MAINTAINS THAT KATHLEEN’S DEATH

WAS DUE TO A FALL DOWN THEIR STAIRWAY.

Karas: BUT FROM MICHAEL PETERSON’S POINT OF VIEW,

IT WAS A PRETTY GOOD DEAL.

HE DIDN’T HAVE TO ADMIT IT, HE IS A CONVICTED FELON,

BUT THERE’S A GUARANTEE HE’LL NEVER GO BACK TO PRISON AGAIN,

AND HE’LL NEVER BE CHARGED AGAIN.

Narrator: ON FEBRUARY 24, 2017, 16 YEARS AFTER KATHLEEN’S DEATH,

PETERSON APPEARS BEFORE THE ORIGINAL TRIAL JUDGE,

ORLANDO HUDSON, TO ANNOUNCE HIS DECISION.

Man #4: YOUR HONOR, AT THIS TIME, WE’RE HERE TO ADDRESS

THE CASE OF THE STATE VERSUS MICHAEL PETERSON.

HOW DOES MR. PETERSON PLEAD

TO THE CHARGE OF VOLUNTARY MANSLAUGHTER?

HE ENTERS A PLEA OF GUILTY PURSUANT TO OFFER.

Gasparoli: AFTER HE PLEADED GUILTY,

CANDACE ZAMPERINI GAVE AN EMOTIONAL STATEMENT.

Karas: SHE WAS UPSET AT THE ALFORD PLEA

BECAUSE MICHAEL PETERSON

WASN’T GONNA SERVE ANOTHER DAY IN PRISON,

AND SHE THOUGHT HE HAD BEATEN HER SISTER TO DEATH.

MICHAEL PETERSON, THE WORDS ALFORD PLEA,

THEY’RE MEANINGLESS.

ALFORD SHMALFORD, IT MEANS NOTHING, GUILT.

YOU BRUTALLY TOOK THE LIFE OF A WOMAN THAT PROVIDED FOR YOU,

REGARDED YOUR CHILDREN, LOVED YOUR CHILDREN.

SHE LOVED YOU.

SHE MADE A HOME PEOPLE COMPLIMENTED.

SHE COOKED EXTRAVAGANTLY.

SHE OPENED HER HEART AND HOME WITH JOY.

KATHLEEN WAS THE BEST PERSON YOU’VE EVER HAD IN YOUR LIFE.

IT CAME OVER ME LIKE, "WOW."

I FELT I WAS CHANNELING A BIT OF KATHLEEN IN MY STRENGTH.

YOU ARE PLEADING GUILTY TODAY

TO BEATING MY SISTER KATHLEEN TO DEATH.

MICHAEL PETERSON, NOT ONLY CAN YOU WEAR

THE SCARLET LETTER "A" FOR ADULTERY,

BUT ALSO THE BLACK LETTER "G" FOR GUILTY.

NOT PERFECT JUSTICE, BUT JUSTICE.

THAT WAS HUGELY CATHARTIC TO ME,

THAT I GOT TO SHARE WITH HIM

EXACTLY HOW I FELT ABOUT THE LOSS OF MY SISTER,

AND HOW MUCH IT MEANT TO ME

TO HEAR MICHAEL SAY HE IS GUILTY.

-THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR. -THANK YOU, SIR.

HE WALKED OUT OF COURT A FREE MAN.

AT 6:00 HE WAS ON WRAL SAYING, "I’M INNOCENT."

ALL THE DECISIONS I MADE IN MY LIFE,

THIS HAS BEEN THE MOST DIFFICULT.

MY SON CLAYTON, HE PUT IT ALL IN PERSPECTIVE.

HE SAID, "DAD, YOU’RE PLAYING A GAME

AT A CROOKED TABLE.

THE ODDS ARE AGAINST YOU, YOU’LL NEVER WIN."

Fanning: I COULD NOT BELIEVE IT.

MANY PEOPLE WHO BELIEVE IN HIS GUILT WERE OUTRAGED.

THE TIME HE SPENT IN JAIL WAS NOTHING COMPARED

TO THE REST OF KATHLEEN PETERSON’S LIFE,

AND I THINK KATHLEEN

AND HER FAMILY WERE ROBBED OF JUSTICE.

♪

Karas: TODAY MICHAEL PETERSON LIVES IN DURHAM, NORTH CAROLINA,

IN A TWO-BEDROOM CONDO.

HE SPENDS TIME WITH HIS CHILDREN AND HIS GRANDCHILDREN,

AND HE’S WORKING ON A NEW NOVEL.

I HAD AN ENCOUNTER [LAUGHS] A COUPLE OF WEEKS AGO.

I HAD GONE TO THE POST OFFICE, AND I’M LIKE,

"OH, MY GOD, THERE’S MICHAEL PETERSON."

AND I JUST HAD KIND OF A WEIRD FEELING,

LIKE, WE CONVICTED THIS MAN OF KILLING HIS WIFE,

AND HERE HE IS WALKING THE STREET JUST LIKE WE ARE.

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

TO THIS VERY DAY.

Gasparoli: IT HAD AN EXTRAORDINARY PROTAGONIST,

HIGH-SOCIAL STANDING, HIGH INTELLIGENCE,

MANSIONS, MONEY, SEX, POWER, BETRAYAL.

Hardin Jr.: WHEN PEOPLE THINK ABOUT THIS CASE,

FRANKLY I HOPE THEY DON’T FOCUS

ON MIKE PETERSON BECAUSE HE DOESN’T DESERVE IT.

THEY SHOULD FOCUS ON KATHLEEN, ’CAUSE SHE DOES.

Hunt Zamperini: KATHLEEN IS REMEMBERED.

MY DAUGHTERS VERY MUCH REMEMBER HER.

I’M BLESSED WITH A LOT OF PICTURES,

AND THERE WAS ONE PHILOSOPHY

SHE ALWAYS SHARED WITH ME THAT I HOLD DEARLY.

YOU KNOW YOU’RE GONNA HAVE BAD DAYS.

WHEN YOU HAVE THE BAD DAYS,

YOU’VE GOT TO REACH IN YOUR BRAIN

AND BRING FORWARD THAT HAPPY DAY.

SO I WILL, AND I DO THINK

OF A LOT OF REALLY HAPPY TIMES WITH HER.