We just finished watching "The Staircase" on Sundance

[OldLeftieLawyer]

It tells the story of a woman's death in Durham, NC, and follows the case from the arrest of her husband through his trial to his conviction for first-degree homicide.

After almost 30 years of being a lawyer, I am right now hardpressed to believe that law can be practiced in such a shoddy and blatantly prejudicial manner as I saw in that North Carolina courtroom. I mean, it's been a long time since anything legal has scared me, but this scared the life out of me, and I was just watching this French-made documentary.

It was brilliantly done. Just marvelous.

But, it shook my faith in the legal system - at least in North Carolina - in a profound and unsettling way for me.

[slay]

1. I live in NC - not surprised

I haven't seen or even heard of the movie but I'll check it out. NC is one backwards ass place sometimes. I mean, it is Jesse Helms country down here. :crazy:

[frankly_fedup2]

3. I haven't seen the movie either; however, my son got in trouble

for the first time in his life with the law. This nightmare never ends. I have lost all my faith in our justice system. It's disgusting what people who have the law on their side can get away with.

Once a person gets caught in the criminal justice system, even if you are doing everything right, they will not leave you alone. That is why so many people that have gotten in trouble continue to get in trouble. The cops are bored so they have to find something to do, right? The probation officers are not there to help you. They are just a cop in street clothes. Then you have these so-called state counselors. Insurance do not recognize them, you cannot get a private counselor because if you try, you are told by your probation officer that she will make sure that you get two more years probation added on. (Her friend is one of the counselors and if they don't have anyone to counsel, they don't get paid).

I could go on forever. I hate our government . . . from the president down to the town cop. These people sell their souls for a little power.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

6. I've spent my life warning people not to tangle with the law

The worst thing in the world, from my angle, is to get entangled, even in the slightest way, with the legal system. Once in, it's a hell of a job to get out.

I know how you feel, but just make sure your son plays the game and gets himself out of it. Then, when he's put a couple of years between him and the system, make sure he hires a lawyer and has his record expunged.

[Lex]

17. This trial happened in VERY LIBERAL Durham NC

and the jury was made up of educated professionals for the most part.

This was NOT a Jesse Helms' "red state" thing.

[Synnical]

2. Many years ago I rented a place from an attorney

And he said he stopped practicing law because a Judge in Mississippi, or Alabama, I forget which, stated, in the courtroom, that, "The Court takes Judicial Notice that all Niggers are liars."

It's no wonder that no one has any "faith" in the Judicial system anymore. And that it's rigged against persons of color.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

4. That's not been my experience - with some notable exceptions

But, what's chilling about "The Staircase" is that the defendant was an affluent, accomplished white guy with plenty of money to afford an excellent defense, complete with lots of expert witnesses - including Henry Lee - and you watch the prosecution present an absolutely nonsensical, fantasy-ridden case with no substantive or circumstantial evidence, and still the jury convicted him.

[Synnical]

13. You have to be kidding me!

"the defendant was an affluent, accomplished white guy with plenty of money"

[OldLeftieLawyer]

24. He wasn't? n/t

[Lex]

15. You did NOT see the whole of the State's evidence in that documentary!

There was much more physical evidence and other evidence that pointed toward Peterson's guilt.

This film left A LOT of the State's evidence on the cutting room floor.

[Lex]

16. The defendant in this case was WHITE and there were whites

and persons of color on the jury. About half white and half african american I'd say.

[Loki]

5. My husband and I watched that series

and we were both just staring at each other at the end of the trial with disbelief and fear - fear that this could happen to any one. The prosecuting attorney who made the closing arguments ( the woman) was just unbelievable. Playing on the bisexual angle for all it's worth and knowing her jury would convict on that element alone. Just another one of my deeply held convictions, that fundamentalist Christianity walks a fine line between mental illness and sanity. I hope that Michael Peterson can appeal or at least get a new trial. The judge apparently has been overturned by higher courts frequently. Our judicial system seems broken almost beyond repair.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

7. I'm a lady lawyer (snort)

and I wanted to slap that bitch's face off. Did you ever in your life see such an unpleasant, condemning twat? I mean, her closing argument was nothing but bullshit, as was the whole prosecution's case. But she was especially vile.

Did I mention she was ugly, too? I'm sort of put off by women who apply their makeup with a trowel and who are dressed by Barbie and Godzilla.

I'm still rattled.

Peterson spent more than $500,000 on his defense. How do you like THAT?

[faithnotgreed]

8. oh yeah i watched all of it... and i know JUST the face youre talking

about

i esp loved when she was feigning shock in her closing argument.. " im just going to say it that guy brad said they were going to have anal sex "

egads
im not even going to speculate on how much she secretly enjoyed saying that (and more than once too)

and i know were not going to get started on dear nancy grace/court tv are we? could her nostrils get any larger?

(to correspondent who actually attended trial): "well you may have been there and heard the testimony that there were no blood stains found on michael petersons shirt but what that says to ME is that he must have changed his shirt before the police got there!"
snort

[Lex]

12. That prosecutor gave a 1 hour and 15 min. closing statement and

only a few minutes were devoted to the bisexuality and the defendant's seeing male prostitutes.

The documentary left out a LOT and put in only the most salacious parts of the State's case.

I watched the trial in its entirety when it occured here in my town.

[faithnotgreed]

18. oh of course. i do understand but theres no doubt they gave the

obligatory sneers and the language used that made it very clear what they were going after in that respect
and nancy grace (as weve seen lately on tv) seems to display bias quite easily.


so tell me what you thought of the trial as a whole? im very interested as i watched the documentary. and certainly when you only see a small part then thats a bias as well

one question i havent been able to find: did katherine have any defensive wounds?

[Lex]

19. Yes, Kathleen definitely had defensive wounds and

the Medical Examiner testified about them, but that part was cut out of the documentary--along with a lot of other evidence.

I mean, the defendant had medium-velocity blood spatter from Kathleen up on the INSIDE of his baggy shorts' leg--but that testimony wasn't shown in the documentary either!

Here's a lot of information on the autopsy of Kathleen:

http://www.wral.com/peterson/1452095/detail.html (scroll down to the bottom of this page for the autopsy links)

[faithnotgreed]

21. was that autopsy verified by anyone independent of the me? i didnt

particularly feel i could trust her (or anyone with the state) though again i do understand that there is editing

wow i have so many questions but i better let you read other things on this board! do you feel theres an unbiased resource online for this case
its definitely not court tv

[Lex]

25. The ME was fully qualified to do the autopsy and there were others

there verifying everything that happened during the autopsy.

It wasn't like she was alone in a room by herself doing the autopsy.

My recommendation for getting BOTH sides of the story is to read the book "Written in Blood" by Diane Fanning. It's in paperback now. Lots of research and she spoke to lots of people involved, including family members.

[faithnotgreed]

33. oh ok thanks for the book recommendation

and i certainly wasnt questioning the me ability but her intention but then as we have established this was an edited version so of course there is a great deal i cant know about

[Lex]

34. The book is pretty good and now that you've seen the documentary

you'll be amazed at everything the documentarians left out.

[Lex]

14. You only saw a very small part of the State's evidence against Peterson.

He was not wrongly convicted.

There was plenty of physical evidence against him. The least of it was the male prostitutes and male porn.

[11cents]

9. What I've heard from two people who lived in Durham ....

...during the trial was that this documentary simply omitted many of the stronger points in the prosecution's case, as well as assorted facts that looked bad for Peterson. Also heard that Peterson's newspaper column was consistently homophobic, which argues against the notion that he was comfortable with his sexuality and his wife knew about it. I found "The Staircase" absolutely gripping, and I didn't think it was exactly an attempt to exonerate Peterson (who came across as pretty creepy), but I don't think it was telling anything like the complete story.

[southlandshari]

10. Thread about this in the True Crime discussion group...

Door's open if anyone wants to visit our little corner of the world!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=313x255

[Lex]

11. There was LOTS and LOTS left out of the Prosecution's case

in that documentary. The filmmakers put the State in the worst possible light in that film.

I'm from Durham and I followed the trial in its entirety and I'm appalled at how slanted it was for the defense.



Believe me, I do not think he is a murderer because he is bisexual. I don't have that prejudice at all. But I do know there was sufficient evidence to erase any 'reasonable doubt.'

Now here are the 10 principle reasons I believe MP was convicted:

1) Blood spatter up Michael Peterson's shorts leg that was blood in motion--the blood was Kathleen's.

2) No bruises on Kathleen's lower body (knees, legs, buttocks) even though the Defense said Kathleen fell.

3) Kathleen's thyroid cartilege crushed--injury seen usually in stranglings or throttlings.

4) MP (Michael Peterson)'s bloody tennis shoe print on Kathleen's sweatpants.

5) The red neuron evidence (KP bled out over several hours, not just an hour or so).

6) Evidence of the crushing credit card debt of more than $100,000 and MP was secretly begging, behind Kathleen's back, for money from relatives for the girls and for his sons.

7) Evidence of pursuit of sexual liaisons outside the marriage and behind Kathleen's back.

8) Conflicting stories about what he, MP, was doing during the hours that KP bled out.

9) Blood evidence and spatter more consistent with a beating, not a fall.

10) Head lacerations not consistent with a fall.

[faithnotgreed]

20. wow lex. thats very interesting and thanks for sharing it

what about henry lees testimony to no blood spatter and consistent with a fall? did the prosecution show otherwise? i thought there was no castoff and very little spatter - that it was concentrated around the stairwell area

who had 100k debt. was that the son or michael

[Lex]

23. Michael Peterson and his wife had over 100,000 of credit card debt

and he hadn't claimed one cent of income for years (since 1998 I think).

His sons had a load of credit card debt and he was begging his ex-wife Patricia to put a home-equity loan on her home to help them pay it--he told Patricia he couldn't help them and he couldn't talk with Kathleen about it. This were in emails about 1 month before Kathleen's death.

He was also asking relatives of the Ratliff girls for money to keep them in college (also recent emails recovered from his computer just before Kathleen's death).

[faithnotgreed]

30. would her dying benefit them financially?

[Lex]

32. Life insurance policy with a double payout if an "accident"

would've been paid to the defendant if he had gotten away with it.

[faithnotgreed]

35. how does he afford nearly 900k defense (was that right?

thats what i heard on the show) if he needed insurance money so badly?

[Lex]

36. He leveraged the rest of the equity on his house and borrowed money

from his wealthy lawyer brother and his ex-wife.

He also received a $350,000 payout from Kathleen's benefits at work which he shouldn't have received--it is the subject of a lawsuit now.

After the trial, he sold his house and it was in such a state of long-term disrepair that he only got about half of what he paid for it. Someone now is starting to fix it back up.

At the trial it came out that Michael Peterson even refused to buy a headstone for Kathleen's grave. Finally Kathleen's sisters got the headstone for her.

[Miss Chybil]

26. I watched an episode of that show, as well. It was riveting, but what

really made me suspect the guy was when they brought up the lady in Germany who had died the same way while he was there - the mother to his two adopted children. Of course, that could be just "coincidence," but until that point, I was really sure he was innocent. After that things didn't quite look the same.

[Lex]

28. Yes, the first woman found dead at the bottom of staircase 18 yrs ago

was a stunning thing. Plus, all evidence pointed to him being the last person to see her alive and was actually at her house that night.

Then she's dead of head lacerations at the bottom of the staircase.

Terrible.

[DavidFL]

22. Come to Florida sometime...

Not a lawyer myself, but work/have worked for some on the civil side in the 2 yrs I been down here. And let me tell you, after working 4 yrs in the NYC area before that for both courts and lawyers, I think I spent my first work week here trying not to laugh out too loud, and picking my jaw up off the floor, at some of the things that go on here. I'm talking things like lawyers making arguments that bear no relation to the established facts in a case in court, openly lying in court papers, and using incorrect rules in a particular court (e.g., circuit court rules in appellate court). Then I've seen judges that don't read litigants' filings (I should say have their clerk read them), or have court reporters present at hearings and trials. And don't even get me started on the trial court judges that inject their personal political ideologies into their rulings. Then there's the Hillsborough County Court, but that's a whole other story. Anyway, I could probably write a book if I sat here long enough. Don't know about the criminal justice system here, but after seeing what goes on on the civil side, frankly, I never want to.

Like you, I am still shocked sometimes at what goes on down here. However, if I do end up staying in Florida, I'm honestly thinking of finding another career because I've noticed I'm getting burnt out by it. I don't know how the lawyers here who spend all that time and money on their education, and then have to practice in all this nonsense, don't get burnt out easily themselves.

[Lex]

27. In this case, the defense contacted the documentarians and

the documentarians told the case entirely from the viewpoint of the defendant, to the point of leaving out crucial State's evidence and taking highly inflammatory snippets from the State's case.

No one was railroaded in this case if you familiarize yourself with both sides of the case.

Plus, this town is a very liberal college town.

But yes, I believe that sometimes the things you mention do happen in courts. Just not in this case.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

29. Here in DC and VA, there's plenty of burnout

In fact, one of the bars to which I belong has - for more than twenty years - a hotline for members to call when they realize they're alcoholics or drug addicts or just slipping away. There are very discreet programs into which they can very discreetly be placed, and there are other lawyers who very discreetly cover for them until they're ready to return.

I understand that the documentary was a distillation of a long case and trial, but, my horror was at the lousy decisions I saw made by the judge - for instance, allowing the prosecution to claim a blow poke was the murder weapon without offering one scintilla of evidence of any kind connecting said blow poke to the death. When the blow poke was located, and the prosecution's testing of it revealed that it could not have been used to bludgeon anyone, at that point, I think that bordered on prosecutorial misconduct.

Likewise, there was no connection between Peterson's bisexuality and his wife's death. Nothing was offered to show that she knew or didn't know - just idle, and unprovable, speculation that on the night of her death she found some email of his making a date with some guy. In all the years he'd been doing that, she found only one email - and they both had access to the computer?

Frankly, what I saw of the prosecution's closing arguments begs belief. There's a thing called the Golden Rule, which means an attorney for the other side cannot object to anything said by the opposition in opening or closing statements, but that bullshit about Peterson having made a date with a man for "anal sex" had absolutely nothing to do with the case at hand, and I, for one, think just the few things I've listed here are good grounds for reversal.

[Lex]

31. Well, actually the prosecution said the muder weapon was

a "blowpoke or something like it" (a lightweight object that was sharp on the end) but you probably know that the State doesn't have to prove the exact weapon which was used in order to make its case.

Also, there is no evidence showing that the blowpoke "found" was the one that might've been used. The sharp tip was missing. I found it interesting that the Defense attorney said to his client "I don't know what you used, but this blowpoke has no blood on it." (What?)

Secondly, yes--infidelity in a marriage IS relevant to show motive. Doesn't matter if it's homosexual or heterosexual sex the spouse is pursuing.

Peterson was making dates with a man, or even if a woman, shows he did not have a "perfect marriage" which is what the defense claimed in ITS opening statement.

[faithnotgreed]

37. that was one thing i immediately didnt think was a good idea.

when david rudolph stressed that they had an idyllic relationship. you almost knew something was going to happen with that

[Lex]

38. Yes. It opened the door for the Prosecution to refute that

by showing that he was pursuing sex outside the marriage and actually preferred having sex with men, apparently.

Anyway, there is some discussion about the documentary at this Sundance site:

http://www.sundancechannel.com/discuss/?ixTopic=232

[OldLeftieLawyer]

39. Not having a "perfect marriage"

has nothing to do with proving that a man committed a murder.

You'll never convince me that Mrs. Peterson died in anything but a fall. Find me a bludgeon death where someone's head is beaten in by anything, and you'll have skull fractures, brain trauma, neither of which was present in Mrs. Peterson.

The blowpoke was a red herring. That simple. The State did have to prove, though, that a murder took place, and, regardless of blood splatter on Peterson's shorts, I still saw the shoddiest of circumstantial cases that would have been tossed in any of the jurisdictions in which I practice.

The bringing in of the death in Germany 18 years earlier was shocking. And that M.E. was a joke, as was that investigator who recreated the fall and the head injuries with - what was it? - a styrofoam dummy? I mean, that's so absurd as to be frightening. Yet, the State got away with it.

I'm not so sure Durham's that sophisticated, and I would want to know more about the jury composition. Remember the jury consultant's trial group? Their comments were just about brain-dead, which didn't lead me to believe that the jury would be composed of terrifically intelligent individuals.

The bisexual business was sordid and nothing but character assassination. There was nothing that connected that part of Peterson's life with Mrs. Peterson's death.

[Lex]

40. Mrs. Peterson died in a fall down stairs and has NOT ONE BRUISE

on her buttocks, legs, hips, or knees?

She has 7 lacerations to the back of her head. And the husband is the only one home at the time and he turns up with medium velocity blood spatter on the inside of his shorts leg.

And he was railroaded? Not believable.

Of course he didn't bash in her head--he wanted it to look like a fall if he could--he definitely didn't want it to appear to be a beating.

And certainly his being bisexual doesn't mean he killed her, but pursuing sex outside the marriage with prostitutes means he is interested in sex outside the marriage. How can that NOT be relevant to motive? If a husband is cheating on his wife (whether bi, homosexual, or straight) is RELEVANT to motive.


You have to admit, you ONLY SAW a carefully crafted documentary of only HALF of the case.


BTW, Durham is ALWAYS a blue county. Duke University is here and Durham gives domestic partnership benefits to its city employees, and Duke gives them to its faculty and staff. Gays and lesbians are a part of the community--we even have a nationally recognized Gay and Lesbian Film Festival here each year. It's no backwater.

This is a city of over 200,000 people with a heavily technology-driven and medical-driven job market (Duke Medical Center is located here).

For the jury profiles:
http://www.courttv.com/trials/novelist/jurors.html

[RevolutionStartsNow]

41. I want to watch this, but...

my TiVo is confused. When I search for it in the guide, it finds a 1hr40min documentary from 2004, and also finds 4 named episodes from 2005 that are each 50min long. On the Sundance website, I notice that this is meant to be an 8-part series (the 4 eps that come up on the guide are the final 4).

Can anyone help sort this out? Are there 2 different shows, a full documentary and a multi-part series?

[faithnotgreed]

42. sundance showed 4 "episodes" which are each 2 chapters

totalling 8 chapters (approx 45 minutes each give or take)
this was the documentary in its entirety as i understand it

if you have on demand you can watch it that way

eta: sundance showed 1 episode (2 chapters) on successive mondays for the month of april but i dont know how often its repeated. from what i saw they replayed it quite often during the week

[NightOwwl]

43. I'm watching episode 5 now and from what I've seen so far,

he does appear to be guilty. Another woman dies in the same manner his wife does...falling down the stairs. Once is odd enough, but twice? He's hiding affairs (with men) from her. Her head looks like it's been bashed in with a steel pipe.

Obviously, I'm not seeing this as the jurors are, but based upon the documentary (which I know is limited), this man appears to be guilty of murder.

[Lancer]

44. Well-made yes; factual, not entirely

I am a native North Carolinian, an editor by trade with a lifelong interest in the criminal justice system. The Triangle area (Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill) is one of the most liberal areas of the country, which is one reason I just moved back here from my hometown of Greensboro. (I graduated from UNC years ago and loved the area then.) With the highest per capita percentage of PhDs of any region in the U.S., world-renowned scientific research facilities and some of the finest universities in the world, the Triangle represents the New South, not the old. It is a patch of Blue in a sea of Red.

Michael Peterson's trial is one I followed from Day One. I attended the trial several times, and accumulated two ring binders full of factual information about the case with the intent to write a book. I wrote to Michael Peterson himself after he went to prison requesting an interview, and received a response in two days. While the tone is friendly on the surface, his narcissism and sociopathic personality shine through. It is all about him; any mention of Kathleen or Elisabeth Ratliff is an afterthought.

The State called approximately 70 witnesses over 54 days' time. Duane Deaver, blood spatter expert with the State Bureau of Investigation with over 20 years' experience, was on the stand for 7 1/2 of those days. I believe only five or six five of the State's witnesses appear in the documentary.

It was the medical evidence that convicted Michael Peterson. For those spectators who knew where to sit in the courtroom, the Maha Productions TV monitor was in plain sight on the fourth row from the back of the courtroom. On it, one could see every exhibit presented to the jury—these were items not shown on Court TV. The day the autopsy photos were introduced into evidence by Medical Examiner Dr. Deborah Radisch, gasps rippled through the room. Once she showed the photos of the shaved and battered heads of Mrs. Peterson and Mrs. Ratliff side by side, no sane person could rationally conclude these injuries were sustained accidentally.

By contrast, the defense spent 2 1/2 days presenting its case. It brought forth no character witnesses. In fact, the only witness in the entire trial who spoke to Peterson's character was a male prositute, brought forth by the State. None of Peterson's family members, nor any of the respected and influential members of the community who spoke out on his behalf in the immediate aftermath of Kathleen's death, ever defended their friend in court, where it really mattered.

Regardless of where this trial was held, the outcome would have been the same. Excluding everything else testified to on the stand, it was the medical evidence and financial disaster looming before the Michael Peterson—if something were not done but quick—that convicted him. Michael Peterson was the consummate poseur—his life (and I'm not even including his sexual orientation) was built upon lies, deceit and treachery. He puffs on his pipe and claims he is a writer, yet he had not published a word for which he was paid since 1999. He had no personal income at all for the three years' prior to Kathleen's death. He did not EVER adopt Elisabeth Ratliff's daughters; they were worth more to him as wards with the pensions and other benefits they received from their natural parents' deaths. He was not wounded in battle in Vietnam; he did not receive two Purple Hearts, as he claimed for many, many years. When this lie was uncovered his 1999 mayoral campaign in Durham was finished. In communities across America, citizens believe that honorable service to our country is one of the noblest of achievements. Intentonal distortion of a war record for personal gain is not something people anywhere take lightly, and it doies leave one's character and veracity in other matters open to scrutiny.

Peterson's newspaper columns were not homophobic; they were largely diatribes against Durham's city government. Peterson faniced himself an advocate of the poor, of minorities and those in the shadows of life. He saw himself as an agent of change, yet he presented no platform for eradicating the corruption and incompetence he perceived as rampant in City Hall and the DPD in either of his failed campaigns for public office. (Prior to his mayoral campaign he had run once for City Council.)

Portraying oneself and accomplishments to the world in a way that departs from reality is no crime; nor does it make one a murderer. But Michael Peterson remains the only individual with a motive, the means and the opportunity to kill Kathleen Peterson.

Michael Peterson's brother Bill, who is a lawyer in Reno, NV, paid for his brother's defense. Michael Peterson could not find a prayer in a Bible, much less a dime to defend himself against a burglary charge.

The jury deliberated for a week. Had they come back in 90 minutes with an acquittal, as O.J. Simpson's jury did, then yes, I suppose we could feel that our faith in the American justice system was misplaced. But these jurors cast aside the Ratliff testimony and homosexuality and concentrated solely on the medical and financial evidence. They slept on their decision, and were prepared to vote again if one or more of the jurors had had a change of heart.

Tripping on stairs generally causes one to fall forward. Falls down stairs produce broken necks, broken bones, sprains, contusions and bruising. Apart from minor bruising on the wrists and arms—and one bruise on the upper arm was obviously made by a strong hand circling her bicep—none were present to any degree in Kathleen Peterson's autopsy. Falls down wooden stairs do not leave the back of one's head peeled open as if an orange, with 5" long V-shaped evulsions in the skin exposing the skull. Falls down wooden stairs do not produce broken thyroid cartilage in the throat. This injury is generally associated with strangulation or hitting the steering wheel in a car accident.

Given the lack of balance and information given in The Staircase, it is very easy to understand the befuddlement over the verdict that has been rampant on the internet this week.

[yardwork]

45. I've lived in the Triangle area for 25 years and I concur with Lancer

Lancer, Lex, and others in this thread have it right.

I'm a scientist by background and I followed the trial carefully. "The Staircase" is presenting a very one-sided view of the case. In fact, it's shameful how Maha Productions is leaving out all the evidence that doesn't match their pre-conceived idea.

The jury did a good job reviewing the evidence. Michael Peterson is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt because of the following three pieces of key evidence, supported by numerous prosecution expert witnesses AND NOT REFUTED BY A SINGLE DEFENSE WITNESS:

1. Kathleen Peterson's injuries were the result of an attack with a weapon. It is not possible for her injuries to have been caused by a fall down three steps, as the defense claimed. All the evidence presented in the case - including the defense evidence itself - proved this beyond a reasonable doubt.

2. Kathleen Peterson lay dying for hours. The red neurons that formed in her brain, and the dissolved tissue in her blood, prove this beyond a doubt. This means that Michael Peterson's entire alibi is nonsense.

3. High-velocity blood spatters were found on the inside pant legs of the shorts Michael Peterson was wearing. These blood spatters could only have been caused by the wearer of the shorts standing over a bloody body and beating it repeatedly. Either Michael Peterson beat Kathleen to death, or he put on the pants of the person who did.