Could an owl be the unexpected twist in a murder mystery? We're Megan and Lindsay, your guides through the labyrinth of the Michael Peterson trial, where every piece of evidence seems to lead to another enigma. Today we're dissecting the courtroom showdown that pits financial troubles and hidden lifestyles against a seemingly simple fall – all under the looming question of how a husband could miss his wife's fatal descent. We're dusting off the case files to bring you a riveting discussion on the perplexing blood spatter analysis and scrutinize whether expert testimonies swayed the scales of justice.
Forensic revelations can make or break a case, and in the Peterson trial, the blood told a story that seemed almost too bizarre to be true. With Dr. Henry Lee offering his expertise, we unpack the prosecution's claim of a meticulously cleaned murder weapon and contrast it with the defense's narrative of a tragic accident. Did the spatter patterns on the walls whisper the truth, or were they silent witnesses to an even greater mystery? We take you through the twists and turns of the blood evidence debate that left even the experts at odds.
Then there's the theory that swooped in from left field – the 'Owl Theory.' It's a notion as wild as nature itself, suggesting a nocturnal predator could be responsible for the wounds that led to Kathleen's tragic end. We sink our talons into this sensational hypothesis, weighing the possibility of such an unusual assailant against the backdrop of a case riddled with legal quandaries, like the Alford plea that haunted Michael Peterson. Stay with us as we explore the intersection of wildlife, forensic science, and the intricate dance of the American justice system.
Thanks for all the support!! Please follow us on Facebook, Instagram, and Tik Tok, or email us, and remember we now have a Patreon!!
patreon.com/sinnersamongsaintspodcast
sinnersamongsaintspodcast@gmail.com
Tik Tok @sinnersamongsaints
Could an owl be the unexpected twist in a murder mystery? We're Megan and Lindsay, your guides through the labyrinth of the Michael Peterson trial, where every piece of evidence seems to lead to another enigma. Today we're dissecting the courtroom showdown that pits financial troubles and hidden lifestyles against a seemingly simple fall – all under the looming question of how a husband could miss his wife's fatal descent. We're dusting off the case files to bring you a riveting discussion on the perplexing blood spatter analysis and scrutinize whether expert testimonies swayed the scales of justice.
Forensic revelations can make or break a case, and in the Peterson trial, the blood told a story that seemed almost too bizarre to be true. With Dr. Henry Lee offering his expertise, we unpack the prosecution's claim of a meticulously cleaned murder weapon and contrast it with the defense's narrative of a tragic accident. Did the spatter patterns on the walls whisper the truth, or were they silent witnesses to an even greater mystery? We take you through the twists and turns of the blood evidence debate that left even the experts at odds.
Then there's the theory that swooped in from left field – the 'Owl Theory.' It's a notion as wild as nature itself, suggesting a nocturnal predator could be responsible for the wounds that led to Kathleen's tragic end. We sink our talons into this sensational hypothesis, weighing the possibility of such an unusual assailant against the backdrop of a case riddled with legal quandaries, like the Alford plea that haunted Michael Peterson. Stay with us as we explore the intersection of wildlife, forensic science, and the intricate dance of the American justice system.
Thanks for all the support!! Please follow us on Facebook, Instagram, and Tik Tok, or email us, and remember we now have a Patreon!!
patreon.com/sinnersamongsaintspodcast
sinnersamongsaintspodcast@gmail.com
Tik Tok @sinnersamongsaints
Hey guys, I'm Megan and I'm Lindsay, and welcome to another week of Centers Among Saints. Welcome to part two, Part du. Remember that with um Leslie Nielsen, I've never seen it. Oh my gosh, that's so good. Oj Simpsons and I'm back before. He was a known murderer, I guess not known, sorry, sorry, a legend, a legend murderer, a legend murderer, but we can say a known cuckoo pants, since he's gone to prison and done whatever since then.
Speaker 1:So any hue, any hue. We are back for part two. Part two If you have not listened to part one, you have to. Yeah, this is one of those where you really need to listen to all of that part before you get to this part. If you haven't, jump on back. Go listen to that and then come right over to this.
Speaker 4:Yeah, because we have a lot, so then it all makes sense. I am excited. I want to just jump into this one because I need to know. Yes, I need to know what happened.
Speaker 1:There's so much. Okay, so jump on right back in. All, right, let's do it. So, with the trial in full swing, do you want to give a recap? Oh, yeah, I guess so. So in the first part we talk a little bit about Michael Peterson, who ends up being the suspect, his background military author and his second wife, kathleen. They have a big giant A-Home in North Carolina and on the night of December 9th 2001, she is found at the bottom of her stairs in like a horrific bloody scene. Michael's arrested on first degree murder charges and now we're just kind of getting into the prosecution showing motives that Michael was bisexual, he was having affairs with male escorts, they were in a lot of debt, but there's stuff that the defense is kind of counterbalancing with that. The defense believes that she just fell down the stairs. The prosecution believes that he beat her to death.
Speaker 4:And neither of those theories quite add up. But there's like parts that you can pull from each that are like man maybe.
Speaker 1:Yeah, there's a lot of confusing, conflicting stuff, so weird things. Okay, we're into the trial now and, just like before, there's more questions to be unanswered. Like how did Kathleen have this horrific, extreme accident without Michael hearing anything? Yeah, like surely she would have screamed, or something right.
Speaker 4:Could he have heard her? Like where they're at and their house is enormous, so could. If he was outside by the pool finishing smoking his cigar where the house was, did they think he would have been able to hear her scream?
Speaker 1:Well, it's just something that people say, right. So the defense carries out an experiment. They play a recording of someone screaming from the staircase and conclude that you could not hear it out at the pool. Okay, but like we said, the home is over 11,000 square feet.
Speaker 3:So that doesn't seem like a far-fetched thing to me, but like you, wouldn't be able to hear that, yeah, no the problem Especially if she was using like a service staircase.
Speaker 4:Yeah, Wasn't the main staircase.
Speaker 1:Did they ever?
Speaker 4:say, was that like a normal way for her to go upstairs? So she used that a lot. It wasn't like a fluke thing.
Speaker 1:No, they normally use that staircase a lot in the house. So now the prosecution needed a murder weapon, and since there wasn't any evidence of one ever found at the scene, they decided to go full force with this blow poke theory after one of Kathleen's sisters came to them stating that she had given everyone in her family a blow poke previously for Christmas present, and the blow poke that she gave them was missing.
Speaker 4:So this for sure must be the murder weapon, right?
Speaker 1:So, according to the prosecution, michael was able to beat Kathleen to death in the head without getting hardly any blood on him, without fracturing her skull, without causing any sort of brain damage, and while this seems pretty impressive to be able to do, he did have a small amount of blood on him.
Speaker 4:There was some on his shoes, which is natural, because when you see that crime scene, they say, should not walk in a way without something on him, and he coughs when she was still breathing or still breathing, so where? Yeah?
Speaker 1:he says she was still breathing.
Speaker 4:They don't know that speculation there's never really said, whether or not that was 100%. So like how did he have time to like Right and where did he hide this?
Speaker 1:blow poke Right yeah, but I still don't think he had a lot of time from the time that they think it happened.
Speaker 4:Yeah.
Speaker 1:Okay, whatever. And he does have a small amount of blood on the inside of one of his short legs Short pant legs, short legs they weren't pants, they were shorts. On the fabric of the legs of his shorts yeah, because you can say pant leg and sounds perfectly normal. When you say short leg, it does not. So that's where it was. So in the search the police never found any other sign of bloody clothing, any sign that he had taken bloody clothes off, thrown them in the wash, that they had been disposed of, or the same with any sort of a murder weapon. That there had been one, there was one hidden, that there was one thrown away Okay, whatever. But this also does not rule out the possibility of Michael pushing Kathleen down the stairs. Okay.
Speaker 1:So defense attorney David Rudolph also challenged Dr Radish's findings and I love this part and I wish I didn't see a video of it and it might be on the staircase, but I did not watch that. I watched a couple of their documentaries and there's one that kind of goes over, it's got him in it and he's talking the whole time, and there's one with Michael in it too, and so I watched both of those and it was very interesting. But I never saw this, but I would love to have seen it. So David Rudolph takes a stack of 500 beating deaths that have occurred in Durham County over the last 10 years, sets it in front of her on the stand and asks her to look through there and just tell the court how many of those victims were devoid of any skull fractures or any sort of brain damage of any kind. Boom, none, none, not one of the cases.
Speaker 1:Dang, there had not been a case, at least in the past 10 years, where a victim was beat to death and somehow escaped having any sort of skull fracture or brain damage.
Speaker 4:Okay, Right, because when you're beating, this is awesome because he did his research, man, he did his work.
Speaker 1:Oh, and you beat someone to death. You are extremely angry. You're not taking slight blows. No, you're not like, you're trying to crush their faces.
Speaker 4:They're not like trying to fake sword fight. Yeah, somebody, you're like You're trying to demolish them. Yeah, like you're trying to beat their skull in.
Speaker 1:Yeah, Dr Raddish remains silent, unable to give any sort of explanation how you know that could be and how she was able to, you know, determine that that's how Kathleen had died, although there's really no evidence of anyone else having that same issue. But now we're going to bring in the star of the show, and this would be North Carolina State Bureau of Investigation Blood Spatter Expert Analysis, dwayne Dum-Dum-Dever. He is the prosecution's smoking gun, the only evidence in this whole trial that showed even the slightest amount of premeditation, which is what you need in order to get a first degree murder conviction came from this man.
Speaker 1:He claimed that he conducted experiments that showed Michael had stood over Kathleen and beat her not once but also for a second time, which means that he had time between the first and second attacks to think about what he was doing and stop, even if the initial attack was spur of the moment. And that would show premeditation, okay, which I didn't ever really think about, because usually premeditation we think like the whole thing's planned beforehand, but in the midst of an attack.
Speaker 4:What was the other case that we had? We had a case that was like this too, where they were like the initial blow was not premeditated but he could have stopped after that blow and he walked away, and then he came back and beat them. I can't remember.
Speaker 1:That's sounding familiar now we had one other case like that. So that's what he's saying has happened. The second attack Dever states is how Michael got the blood on the inside of his shorts. The defense expert said that Michael likely got the blood on him after throwing himself on Kathleen's body once the police had got there.
Speaker 4:Yeah, I'm actually surprised he didn't have more blood on him, right.
Speaker 1:Dever argued, argued, pointing to his experiments, which were filmed and definitely not conducted in a manner that is consistent with scientific methods. Instead of conducting the experiment and seeing what the findings were, he would conduct the experiments repeatedly until he got the findings he wanted. Okay, okay, so in one experiment and I watched this video- and this is videos he made.
Speaker 4:Yeah, he's doing the experiments.
Speaker 1:Yes, okay. And so in one experiment he shows just how Michael got the blood on the inside of his shorts. He stands like in a super unnatural stance, holding open the leg of his shorts While striking this blood-soaked sponge that he's used in several different experiments as well, and it still takes 40 attempts for him to recreate just what he wants. But then, when he does, him and the other SPI agent that's there with him begin dancing around and high-fiving.
Speaker 4:Like, look, this is exactly what happened. He just had to stand like this.
Speaker 1:And hold his leg of his shorts open like come inside.
Speaker 4:Have you seen the videos of the girls on TikTok that have like the overalls or whatever and they have their hands in their pocket and they're like it has pockets, and then they like parachute the pants out? Oh my God, it's so funny. That's what it reminds me. He would have to have done that with one side and then beat her with the other hand. Yeah, Okay.
Speaker 1:Now when, trying to recreate the blood spatters on the wall, he stands behind the blood-soaked sponge with a replica blow poke that's similar to what they believe he used, and he hits the sponge literally by like raising it, like maybe 12 inches up, and then, like like hits down Okay On it. And when, rudolph, when the attorney Rudolph tries to question Dever, that, like if someone were standing there beating another person, would there not be cast off spatter, like on the ceiling, right, right, like you hit, and then, as you come back, like you're going to have it somewhere else, right, which was not found at the crime scene, there was no blood spatter on the ceiling. Dever said that if the perpetrator hit the victim, then wiped the weapon with a towel before raising it again to strike the person, there would not be any cast off.
Speaker 3:What.
Speaker 1:And so in the video that I watched, like Rudolph is like so you're saying like someone hits a person, then they're going to grab a towel, wipe it clean and then raise it again.
Speaker 4:But the blood splatter isn't just from that flicking blood, it's from it coming down. Well, there's blood spatter on the wall. Right, there's blood spatter on the wall but the blood spatter that would go higher would be like from your cast off right, like you swinging up and down.
Speaker 1:Okay, so not only was there no cast off spatter, but the blood evidence also did not go much higher than Kathleen's body.
Speaker 4:And where's this thing that he's supposedly wiping the murder weapon?
Speaker 1:Well so, there are towels. If you look in the crime scene photos there are towels all around. Kathleen Michael says he got those initially to stop the bleeding and then also he laid a couple under her head to make her comfortable. They tried to say that it was him trying to clean up the scene Clean up.
Speaker 4:Okay, but I could see how you could spin that one both ways then, but he yeah, okay, but so there's.
Speaker 1:there are towels there, but anyway. So the blood that's around her is and on the walls and stuff. It's not much higher than ground level or just above her body. Okay.
Speaker 4:Okay.
Speaker 1:There are also no marks on the wall from said weapon and you would assume there to be like that, there to be some marks somewhere on the wall, because the blow poke they're saying he used was 40 inches long and the stairwell is only 42 inches wide Dang, so it would be very hard to beat someone to death without, incidentally, hitting the surrounding walls.
Speaker 4:Well, not if he's only doing this.
Speaker 1:Yeah, he's only raising it just, and he's just like you sit still. I'm going to hit the back of your head, Don't you move? Yeah, Like don't, and I'm just going to bonk you on the back of the head a bunch of times.
Speaker 4:That's literally what it would be Like without damaging her skull. It's like a bonk, Uh-huh. Like that's not.
Speaker 1:And she would have to just not move and allow him to sit and do that.
Speaker 4:And that still is not going to kill you.
Speaker 1:I don't understand no.
Speaker 4:No, okay.
Speaker 1:So the defense is trying to show that Kathleen was not murdered but in fact slipped and fell due to her having the alcohol day as a Pam and Cycle of Ben's supreme in her system and wearing flip flops. They surmise that she was heading up to bed when she may have become slightly unstable, slipping, falling back down the stairs, hitting her head along the way, tries to get back up, slipping once again in the blood. That's how she gets all over her feet and then, just simply due to the amount of blood loss and probably shock, she just lays there and kind of bleeds out. The prosecution is saying that all the blood on the stairs and the spatter on the walls was from getting hit in the head by Michael Peterson with the blow poke. But the defense blood spatter expert, dr Henry Lee, said there was nothing at the scene that indicated Kathleen had been beaten First. There was no cast off blood on the ceiling, which would almost be inevitable, unless you want to believe Dumb Dumb Dever and his theory that the perpetrator wiped the weapon clean after each blow before making the next strike, especially when you account for the tremendous amount of blood that's at the scene so for none of it to be higher up than ground level or just above her body seems pretty iffy. Dr Lee conducted a couple of experiments in court where he drank a red liquid and then he coughed it onto a white like a white board, showing that those spatters looked eerily similar to the ones found at the scene on the wall surrounding where Kathleen lay. He stated that the blood spatter looked far more like what would happen if someone was covered in blood and were to shake their head or to cough. Okay, I'm like blood, I'm sure is just you know how head wounds bleed. They're like so much ridiculous amount so I'm sure like it was just covering her face, right.
Speaker 1:The defense also brought out Dr Warner Spitz, who is a preeminent forensic pathologist, to explain how a fall could have produced the injuries sustained by Kathleen. That's kind of the question you asked earlier. Yeah, so he tries to compare how, if you were to drop a watermelon, it doesn't necessarily like explode, but it splits open in several places. Okay, okay. So he says that this could account for Kathleen falling, hitting her head on a flat surface, as like the top of the stair or the wall, and then it would split her scalp open in several places. So maybe she hit her head once or twice on the way down. Okay, and that's what accounted for, like the several lacerations, was just the head kind of splitting open rather than completely being obliterated, okay, and without causing any sort of skull fracture or brain damage.
Speaker 1:Now, a couple of days prior to the trial ending, michael Santad comes across the ever elusive murder weapon Leaning up against the wall covered in cobwebs in the boiler room of the Peterson home Shut up. So it turns out that the police did in fact know of this blow poke. They had seen it on the night of the incident. They had even taken the blow poke out and photographed it. But the fact that it did not have any blood evidence on it, nor did it look damaged, like it had just been used to beat a woman to death, they put it back and forgot that it was even there, oh shit.
Speaker 1:So then, weeks later, when it's covered in cobwebs, yeah, okay. So then, weeks later, when Kathleen's sister comes to them with this revelation about the blow poke that's gone missing, they essentially blindly go with her theory, or just decide to go with her theory and try to pretend like they didn't already know the blow poke was there. Wow, okay. So this picture of the blow poke that the police took is found in the prosecution's evidence folder, but was never given to the defense as discovery. Now, was this because it was obvious that it in no way looked as though it had been used to beat someone, or did they really just forget that the picture existed?
Speaker 4:I just I'm not sure why the prosecution even brought this up as a murder weapon. Like, I'm still confused by this. If she doesn't have any skull fractures, why would you not just say he pushed her down the stairs? Why do you need a murder weapon? You have a staircase that could be the murder weapon, right? You don't have to like, like, create something and then create this insane story to match this. Yeah, like, just say he pushed her downstairs. Yep, it would be a lot more believable for me right, yeah, no, I agree, okay.
Speaker 1:So, after four days of deliberation, michael Peterson was found guilty on the charge of first degree murder and sentenced to life in prison.
Speaker 4:Shut up yeah, so the evidence came forward the blow poke.
Speaker 1:No, what? So they found the blow poke like just before the trial wrapped up, but the picture of it did not.
Speaker 4:This lot of the stuff kind of comes out later so they knew about it before it ended, but it just didn't get brought to trial, so the jury essentially didn't hear that. Yeah okay.
Speaker 1:So two years later, on October 10th 2005, michael tried for his first appeal, but it was denied again. On October 17th 2007, he tried for another appeal, but was once again denied, but at this time the North Carolina state did rule that the search of Michael's computer was unconstitutional, but that it was not prejudicial prejudicial enough to grant him a new trial okay, okay even though that's his entire motive.
Speaker 1:Part of his motive yes but then okay, in February 2011, michael is granted a motion for a new trial after evidence that had come to light about dumb, dumb Dwayne Deaver, the SBI agent and expert blood analyst. It had come out that, from 1993 to 2010, deaver had been manipulating, fabricating and concealing evidence in criminal cases to suit what the prosecution needed for a conviction. You, son of a bitch.
Speaker 4:He is the weaseliest, shittiest, most terrible person that's ever existed here's the thing is, our justice system has some flaws it's, but overall. I feel like we try and do a pretty good job, right, but when you get people like this that are fabricating and they're sending people to prison, that shouldn't be in prison just because it's like to get a win or to get a notch on your belt like a notch on your belt.
Speaker 4:Exactly that is horrific. Yeah, that is. This is somebody's life. He's been in prison. How long once when he gets the trial, the retrial eight years, god damn.
Speaker 1:Nine years, eight, nine years. Okay, so Dwayne Deaver had lied about his credentials and his lover left level of expertise. His degree was in zoology and he had only ever taken two courses on blood spatter analysis up and he's working.
Speaker 4:He's like the.
Speaker 1:FBI, he's the FBI. So state Bureau of Investigation for North Carolina? Oh, spi. But yeah, like he's like the state. The state Bureau of Investigation. Calm blood spatter on expert and see what yeah, okay, so he's this possible. He claimed that he had written reports for 200 cases, worked on 500 cases and had been at the scene of over 30 fall cases, but not one piece of that was true people like this.
Speaker 1:Need to be prosecuted like this is insane he actually never worked a fall case ever in his entire career, and this all came out after an independent audit of the SPI in 2010. They reviewed 228 cases and Deaver's years and years of lies were discovered. It turned out that in at least 36 of Deaver's cases, it could be proven that he had manipulated, hidden and lied about evidence. One of his cases was a 1989 case of a man named Greg Taylor. Greg was arrested after his truck was parked near the body of a murder victim and there was something on the front of his truck that Deaver said was blood. Now this was the key evidence in the conviction for the prosecution. It turned out that Deaver had conducted tests on the substance and that it was blood, but it was not human. But Deaver never turned those results in what Greg was acquitted in February 2010, after spending 18 years in prison. They also discovered that the agency and Deaver had falsely reported blood evidence in three cases that ended in executions stop yeah people, three people lost their lives.
Speaker 1:Yes, that were potentially innocent. You, son of a bitch, right, you're not just sending someone to prison like you literally had someone executed that potentially was not how do you live with yourself?
Speaker 4:how do you sleep at night? I have no idea. No idea. That's like a serial killer. Yeah, that is insane.
Speaker 1:No, and I, I am a lab person, that's what did. My degree is in. Like it may not be, it may not be forensic lab stuff, but it's medical lab stuff and this shit like is not okay. No, like not at all. I worked with a guy when I worked at my first lab that we would. So if you do like an Eliza test, you have to put the plate in at the very end and it gets read by a spectro max and then it tells you like your results. Well, if your QC doesn't pass right, it fails your plate. And then you have to redo the whole testing. Well, he would manipulate those results in the computer so that it would look like the plate passed, which I mean doesn't necessarily mean the results were wrong. Right, but your QC didn't pass, which is your quality control. So that doesn't pass. Nothing else gets to pass you really know, yeah, it's just how it is.
Speaker 1:So he got caught because it's in the computer system and it had been audited. They took him like aside and he was like reprimanded, got in big trouble, told them they let him know like we're watching the computer, we're flagging certain things. Like you can't do that. And then he continued to do it all because he didn't want to have to redo testing, which sucks. Yeah, when you fail a plate because you usually don't have time to do it that same day, you should have to the next day. So it means you have two days of work now that you have to do in one day and it sucks and it's not fun, but that's just how it is.
Speaker 1:And he ended up getting fired like on the spot fired. They came down should, but that's like not okay. Like you cannot fabricate your results and hide it and manipulate it to like make it look a way that it's not. That's nuts, because whether it's medical or forensic, like you're dealing with people's lives, yeah, and how they're going to potentially live, moving forward and or die right like yeah, wow, terrible. So all of this led to the reopening of many cases that had been investigated by the SBI, including the Michael Peterson case what happened to it?
Speaker 4:does it say what happened to him? I'll tell you how it happened, okay the judge who ruled over these findings.
Speaker 1:Judge Hudson also ruled that Deaver had perjured himself in the Peterson case, meaning that his blood spatter evidence was no longer admissible in the newly granted trial which his blood spatter.
Speaker 4:Evidence was shit anyways, it was for sure. But how anybody bought that load of bull, I don't know, I don't know.
Speaker 1:So now the prosecution can't use any of the computer evidence because that was deemed unconstitutional. So no gay porn, no emails no none of that. They cannot use any blood spatter evidence because it's all a lie, potentially. And they can't use the Elizabeth Ratliff evidence because there is this rule called rule 404b and it makes so this is a like copy paste of what it says. 404b means it's making admissible most character evidence regarding crimes or acts for which no charges were filed. Okay so, remember.
Speaker 1:Michael Peterson was never even a suspect for Elizabeth Rattliffe's case, so her death cannot be admissible in his trial. Because he wasn't charged. He was even looked at for this Because it was ruled as a natural accident, although he was the last person to see her alive, oh my gosh.
Speaker 1:But he was never a suspect, ever. And three separate doctors ruled that essentially she had a brain aneurysm that's what her cause of death was. And they believe that she had the aneurysm collapsed and fell down the stairs. Yeah, and that's just what happened. And you know, friends had said that she'd been complaining a ton about headaches in the week like leading up to her aneurysm.
Speaker 1:so like, like it all fit Fits, very much so. Now, this is kind of funny. But for the prosecution they had had Deaver on the stand for seven days as their star expert, and in closing arguments, prosecutor Freda Black stated, quote if you believe otherwise, meaning if you believe Kathleen was not beaten to death, you're just gonna have to believe that Dwayne Deaver is a liar.
Speaker 4:Yes, I mean yes, exactly, actually, actually, that's what I believe.
Speaker 1:It's exactly what it is. So absolutely. And the jury after the fact also said that Deaver was the most convincing expert they had heard from in the trial.
Speaker 4:I just wish this is the trial that I wish I would have been at, because it's like you don't know how it was presented, but I can't imagine. This is a load of bullshit.
Speaker 1:So you can go online, you can look up like the staircase because they have like all the the documentary was in the courtroom for all of this stuff. So you get to see a lot of this. But I'm gonna watch it so. I want to play this clip and it's a couple minutes long but it's hilarious. I think it is. It's Dr Henry Lee on the stand and talking and he's the bloods. He's the defense's blood spatter. Yes, okay, and he is talking about.
Speaker 1:He's been asked questions about Dwayne Deaver and it's pretty funny and I just came across it and I was like, oh, my god, I love this so much, so I'm gonna play it for you guys.
Speaker 3:Now, do you recall having a series of conversations with Agent Deaver, after having looked at the model and seeing the target that he created and looking at the test close? Do you recall telling him that you had traveled around the United States and that this was some of the best work that you would see?
Speaker 2:I tell him something. He did some good work and the model is beautiful, but the model did not prove anything. Let me show you a copy of your book. You recall giving a copy of your book? Yes, I generally give everybody a copy of book. I want them to learn.
Speaker 3:Do you recall signing an inscription with a note to Agent Deaver in this book when you were there? Yeah, if you would please read what the note says.
Speaker 2:I say to do when Deaver one of the best. Keep up with your good work. With warm regard Henry Lee, you probably found thousands of this.
Speaker 3:You wouldn't give it to him unless you would felt that way, would you?
Speaker 2:No, no, no. I give everybody courtesy. That's Chinese courtesy. I went to his place. He extended courtesy. Let me see what he has. That's my upbringing respect other people. I give him a book I cannot write, say you're. I don't want to say you can write on the book. Say somebody, you totally wrong or something, what you're going to write of his conclusion is wrong, but he tried very hard. I cannot say he did not try to do good work. Agent Deaver did a lot of work.
Speaker 3:So you're agreeing then that he did good work?
Speaker 2:I didn't what you want me to say. He did lots of work on the book. I cannot say that. Just like I give Mr Roto a book, I say you're one of the best and turny and but he's lousy.
Speaker 1:Okay, so I first of all I love Henry Lee and I know there's been some some stuff about him lately, but I love him and at the very end there, like the person you're laughing is Rudolph, because I like he's the defense's, you know, expert witness. I think like they probably have like a good relationship, but he's just it's so funny cuz he's like what you want me to say like he did lousy work. I can't put that on the book, I can't write that in the book. I have to tell him like I can't say he didn't try hard, he did. Yeah, he tried really hard, but he didn't prove your shit Right.
Speaker 1:I just love it. Oh, that was great. Yeah, prosecuting and prosecution is like trying so hard to be like you said. He was so great and he's like, okay, what am I supposed to say?
Speaker 4:Yeah, what would you like me to say? I also said this attorney was good, but he was total shit.
Speaker 1:Oh, my gosh, I just loved that. I was like it's so funny, that's great, because that's how I feel about stupid Diva as well. So Michael's released from prison on $300,000 bail and with an ankle monitor on house arrest. Okay To be able to like get ready for his new trial, but none of this would be quick and Michael would remain on house arrest for the next six years. Took a long, freaking time. What I mean I guess that's better than prison but, not much.
Speaker 1:Yeah, I mean, I think I live in an 11,000 square foot home with a pool. Like it's probably not true, though. Do they still have that house? Though? Yeah, he's still. Oh, he does, yeah, oh, not anymore, but I think of this time, at the time he did so after careful consideration. The prosecution now unable to use, like I said, the computer evidence. Unable to use blood spatter evidence, unable to use Elizabeth Ratliff's evidence, which was like all of their motives.
Speaker 3:Like everything Right.
Speaker 1:They decide to offer Michael an Alfred plea. Okay, so I'd never heard of this before. Yeah.
Speaker 4:I don't know what that is so an.
Speaker 1:Alfred plea is and this is another like direct kind of quote it's a guilty plea in which a defendant maintains their innocence but admits that the prosecution's evidence would likely result in a guilty verdict if brought to trial. So you're saying I'll take this plea. I'm completely innocent, but I see that they have evidence that might convict me if I go to trial, so what's?
Speaker 1:the difference between that and like a no contest. No contest is just saying like you're not saying that you're necessarily innocent, you're just not going to say you're guilty, you're just saying like I'm not going to actually say, I am absolutely saying I am innocent, so you're saying that you're innocent. You're upholding that you are innocent, but you understand that the prosecution has evidence that might convict you if you go to trial.
Speaker 1:Okay. So at first Michael didn't want to take the Alfred plea because he was like I don't want to admit any guilt, I don't want to take like a guilty plea, even though I'm saying I'm guilty, I'm taking the guilty plea but I'm innocent. But I know that you could maybe convict me.
Speaker 1:It's like I don't want to do that, like I'm innocent and I refuse to say that I'm guilty. And he even in the one have you ever seen like that? It's like a British like news daytime talk show, whatever. And it's like an older guy and a girl and she's like really blonde and he has white hair. There's like videos of him online where, like they start laughing and then they can't stop laughing and they're like both like cracking up. I don't know. It's like been a video that's like super viral and she's like snorting when she's laughing and then he can't stop laughing and it's really funny. Anyway, he's on their show talking and he's just like I refuse to say that I'm guilty because I'm not like I am completely innocent of this, but after, like talking to his kids and family, they really just wanted for him to be free.
Speaker 4:So when you plead this, alfred Alfred.
Speaker 1:Alfred Al F O R D, alfred, alfred, alfred plea. Does that mean that you get time Sometimes. So it just depends on like what like what you're doing and what your what?
Speaker 1:your deal is so they can say, if you plead guilty, will give you this amount of time or they can say time served or whatever, right, so like you're going to get a deal with it. It just kind of depends on what. It is Okay, but they just were like you know, you've already served. Like all this time I think we don't want to go to another trial, don't want to risk another trial. Like we just don't want to do that. Just take the plea. So, after like much, like kind of pushing and persuading, he finally accepted and on February 24th 2017, 16 years after the death of Kathleen Peterson, he enters an Alfred plea of manslaughter with time served. Okay, okay, so he's now done Out free. All of that Now. This case is riddled with police and state corruption. Jane Deaver and the FBI should be absolutely ashamed of themselves for their disgusting behavior, but not only them.
Speaker 1:The medical examiner's office should be, ashamed of themselves as well, because, you see, in the beginning of the case, dr Deborah Radish made findings at the scene that was consistent with that of a fall in severe blood loss. She even sent a letter to her boss stating that that's what she thought had happened. What was told she needed to write? That Kathleen died of blunt force trauma. We know this because this letter was also found in the prosecution's files. That never made it into discovery for the defense to see. Stop.
Speaker 4:They had letters proving that she, that she like made this up.
Speaker 1:Mm-hmm, Wow. And she went on to become the chief medical examiner.
Speaker 4:This is mind-boggling. This is like that typical thing where, instead of letting the crime scene talk to you and tell you exactly what happened and investigating all possibilities, they just get hyper-focused and they're like, oh, it was the husband he did it. Now we're going to do anything we can to make this piece fit and this piece fit and this piece fit.
Speaker 1:It's not really just like where you see some like police investigations, right where they're, like they just decided it's just one person and they're trying so hard to make this person fit the case. But they had the examiner's office lying for them. They had their state expert like blood and analysts analysts lying for them. The prosecution was lying, like they went out of their way to completely lie.
Speaker 4:Yeah with holding things from the defense Like this is nuts. Now these people need prosecuted. This is insane, you would think right.
Speaker 1:So Dwayne Deever was first suspended but then fired from the SBI after the audit had been complete. Okay, deever had the audacity to sue for wrongful termination, but a judge in 2014 upheld the termination. But the North Carolina Human Resources Commission ruled that Deever should never have been fired, but had been. He should have been demoted and had his pay decreased by 10%, which was what other agents that had happened to them in similar situations. So they ordered the SBI to pay Deever 34 months of back pay, but then said that they were in the right to fire him after the perjury ruling in the Peterson case.
Speaker 4:This dude was shady as fuck and he literally might have wrongfully killed people. And they're like oh, you deserve back pay.
Speaker 1:Yeah, what is happening? He's never prosecuted. He's never nothing. Nothing was done to any of these people. He now has a job like working for some other company is like a higher up person. Holy shit, not one person, not one of these people is like held accountable for their absolutely shitty behavior and like fucking with people's lives. Wow, families, children, husbands like wives, everybody that are affected by these people and what they do. This is horrific and nothing happens, nothing, okay.
Speaker 1:So we've all kind of discussed everything that happened the fall, the pushing, the beating but then this theory comes about. That was first pitched in 2003. But it wasn't until a case was almost over and David Rudolph not only thought it was like a super far fetched theory at the time, but he just couldn't come to closing arguments with like this brand new theory like that was super outlandish. So the theory I'm referring to is the owl theory. Okay, now Larry Pollard, who was the Peterson's neighbor and also a lawyer himself, obviously followed his neighbor's case super intently and towards the end of the case in 2003, he came to Rudolph with the owl theory. Larry had always thought it was an owl that had attacked Kathleen on the night of her death. He pointed to the autopsy photos and the blood drops that were found outside the house and the blood smear on the outside of the door frame that literally nobody talks about. That was like wait, wait, what? Throughout the case, what's happening? Okay, and it wasn't until after the case had finished and Michael had been convicted that Rudolph began to look more and more into this theory. And after looking through all the evidence and talking with ornithologists did Rudolph begin to see just how this might actually be a viable cause. So here's what they think happened using the owl theory, kathleen leaves Michael out of the pool, heads inside.
Speaker 1:The couple had been planning on putting up Christmas decorations the following day, but now Kathleen had this big conference call so that was getting kind of pushed aside. So it's thought that as she was heading inside, she grabbed some of the little deer that are seen outside in police photos and set a couple of them up before she was going to set those up before heading to bed. And this is when she's attacked by a barred owl. So the owl grabbed and scratched Kathleen's head. Kathleen naturally begins to freak out, grabbing at the owl in which, which in turn rips out the clumps of hair which are later found in her hands, she's able to free herself from the owl running into the house. This would account for the blood drops on the outside of the walkway leading into the house and the large blood smear on the outside of the front door frame, as seen in police photos.
Speaker 1:Kathleen, now inside profusely bleeding and presumably in shock, tries to run up the stairs in her flip flops, where she slips and falls. She tries to stand back up but again slips in the amount like huge amount of blood that's on the floor and falls again, which accounts for all the blood on the bottom of her feet and then bleeds out the bottom of the stairs. Her injuries, as shown in autopsy photos, are in trident shapes very similar to the talons of an owl. Shit, the tiny scratches on her face, around her eyes, are consistent with the beak of an owl. This explains the pine needles embedded in her hands and the microscopic feather that was found in her hair. That was also consistent with the feathers that grow under the talons of an owl.
Speaker 4:Stop IT, okay so I forgot about the pine needles.
Speaker 1:Yeah. So Larry said that he had actually been attacked by an owl at one point and that it was like being hit in the head with a baseball bat, and that he also had scratches little tiny scratches around his eyes from the attack. And they had tons of barred owls in their neighborhood and not like more than one of their neighbors had been attacked. Apparently, these owls are really aggressive, Dang, and I know owls are birds of prey, but I never think of them as being like aggressive and attacking you.
Speaker 4:Not a human. No, because they just always seem Especially a barn owl, because I mean, some of them are A barn owl.
Speaker 1:It's a barn B-A-R-R-E-D. B-a-r-r-e-d.
Speaker 4:E-D BARD that's like way worse than a barn.
Speaker 1:Yeah, barn owls, I think, are probably not quite as aggressive, but barn owls.
Speaker 4:Okay, I was like I never knew that barn owls were so aggressive and they are not really that big.
Speaker 1:No, and these are pretty big, but these ones are big and when I lived in Syracuse I'm looking at pictures of barred owls.
Speaker 1:Yeah, so when I lived in Syracuse we had tons of owls like outside at night and I used to love like sitting outside and listening to them and I just would always think of them as being like docile, like nice creatures, but apparently they're mean as shit and will attack you Damn. So the more and more that I like looked at the injuries and you should look up autopsy photos, because well, I looked up some of the pictures of the head wounds and it really does.
Speaker 4:It looks like a pitchfork.
Speaker 1:Yeah, yeah, just like how they would have their talons come down right and like you have the like thumb, which is the bottom one, and then the top talons or whatever, and it would account for the fact that they were just deep lacerations but no skull fractures and no brain damage Damn. But head wounds are like they bleed so much and there was so much blood loss that that was her cause of death was loss of blood. Even in the beating death, they said part of like. Not only was she beaten in the head, but she had severe blood loss.
Speaker 4:Shit.
Speaker 1:This all adds up right, it's such a like freak, weird, bizarre accident Death by owl yeah, who would have thought? But I really think that's what happened. And David Rudolph like he does never say he's like we'll never really know, right, Because we just won't, but he definitely leans towards this as being the cause of death- I just want to look up, like other people or whatever that have been attacked, and see the wounds.
Speaker 1:Oh well, and they said that. They said to like look up owl, like owl attacks, and there's like hundreds of videos of people being attacked by owls.
Speaker 4:Just just like. This is a fear. I didn't know that I needed to have Exist it.
Speaker 1:Right, yeah, me either. And this is terrifying. Yeah, yeah, because if you, I mean even look at like that picture, like it's so, like it looks just like a talent.
Speaker 1:It does look just like a talent, just like what would happen if, if you were, and it explains like her hair Uh-huh, her hair in her hands Like being ripped out at the roots because she's trying to get a freaking owl off of her head. Yeah, so she probably just her hair is naturally just wrapped around her hands as she's trying to like get this giant ass bird off her head. This is nuts. Yeah, when I first like heard of that.
Speaker 1:I was like, hey, this is so stupid, Like what are you talking about? But I also want to show you this picture, because Elizabeth Ratliff and Kathleen Peterson are like identical. Those are two separate people, yeah. So this is Kathleen on this side and that's Elizabeth on that side.
Speaker 4:It went to something else.
Speaker 1:Oh darn, oh there.
Speaker 4:They look like they're.
Speaker 1:Like the same person, like the same person.
Speaker 4:It's so freaky I was going to say like sisters, but they look even closer than sisters. Yeah, it's so freaky Like they look like twins.
Speaker 1:Yeah, that is nuts. Isn't that so crazy? That's nuts, they look so much alike. But I don't think he had anything to do with Elizabeth's death. It was just a super unfortunate accident. And so after the fact, caitlyn did sue Michael Peterson like in a civil suit and won $25 million. Oh no, and she doesn't talk to him, and neither does one of Kathleen's sisters, but all the rest of the kids and Kathleen's other sisters are still like on Michael's side.
Speaker 4:So the two that were kind of against him after the autopsy stuff yeah. Were the two that just remained, wow.
Speaker 1:They kind of remained that way, I mean.
Speaker 4:I don't know, that's a Like. It would be really hard if someone told me that my mom, like you, have it in your mind that your mom was murdered in a certain way. Yeah.
Speaker 1:And you have the medical examiner sit you down and be like this is why he did this, this is why he is guilty, and you have all these things and you trust those people. Yeah, but I don't know. I'm also a very logical person. Even in an emotional situation I think I'm able to be pretty logical, especially if I have time to think about it, like maybe not right in that exact moment, but then I think about it afterwards and I would look at the fact that shit came out later, that Dr Radish did not believe that she had been beaten to death, right, but believed that it was a fall accident.
Speaker 4:But, nobody actually sat down the family and said um no, it was not. Of course not. We should have never done this, so I'm sorry.
Speaker 1:But interestingly so, in that video I watched with Michael, the interview I watched with Michael Peterson, and I'm not sure exactly how old he is today, but in that interview he was 78. Okay, so he's. Yeah, he's like old, he looks pretty good for his age but he's old and they're asking him, like what he thinks, you know now, with like the owl theory, like what he thinks, and he's like I still think she fell, and I think it's just hard for him to like it's such an outlandish theory, right, it's just so bizarre. It is bizarre.
Speaker 1:It's such like a freak, weird ass accident to happen. I think it's kind of hard for his mind to wrap around that as being like the cause, and so it's easier for him to just be like no, she fell.
Speaker 4:Well, and this says that owls go for the back of the head too, and then they peck the eyes, yeah, to try and blind their prey.
Speaker 1:Yep, and that's exactly the injury that she had. Like it really does fit Well. And what the hell? Why would she have pine needles embedded in her hands and owl feathers in her hair, right Like, where did she pick those things up? Just hanging out in the house. And the fact that this was, like, legitimately, an issue in their neighborhood right Well, and it's middle of the night right Owls are nocturnal Like middle of the night and she's carrying out deer which they're known to attack.
Speaker 4:Yeah, and according to Google, I'm like obsessed now with owls. It has been like literally picking up deer.
Speaker 1:Yeah, did you also see the videos of them sitting like cross?
Speaker 4:like no, I'm going to watch videos as soon as we're done because now. I'm like so intrigued that I need to know everything about these stupid owls. This is nuts.
Speaker 1:It's crazy, huh. I like I am totally team owl I. It's the most bizarre thing, but it like it fits. Look at that picture. Look they sit cross like a sick.
Speaker 3:Stop it.
Speaker 4:Owls are so damn cute, right. I've never found them creepy in any. No, in any way. And now I'm like second guessing this. It's so weird, right? This is, this is nuts, isn't it crazy? And for me, none of the other fear theories like explained everything. No, and this does.
Speaker 1:Yeah, that was that's. The thing is like the push or the fall. You can see a little bit, but like really you've seen people fall down like we have kids. My kid fricking hits his head and he's hit his head hard before, like like smacking hard or I'm like Jesus. He has a concussion for sure and there's like his head doesn't just split open in seven different places.
Speaker 4:The only thing I know at this point is that the prosecution was totally full of shit and I don't buy their story at all. They like have a fake murder weapon. They just made everything try and fit. So yeah, their theory is out.
Speaker 1:And I really like David Rudolph. Like when you watch him and you listen to him, I think like he just seems more like believable.
Speaker 4:All right. Well, your guys's job after you listen to this is to go on to our Facebook or Insta and let us know what you think. Let's get some discussion going on this one, because maybe we'll transfer a poll up or something I know you can make those. Yeah, we should do a poll, because.
Speaker 1:I'm interested.
Speaker 4:I'm genuinely interested to see what people think about this. Yeah, me too. So, thanks for listening, thanks for coming. Yeah, that was a great one. Please go give us a five star review and tell all of your friends about us. Go sign up for our Patreon yes, please, and follow us on Instagram, facebook and Tiktok yes, and remember to keep listening if you want, and on the same. Bye guys, bye.