Crime Weekly - S3 Ep109: Kathleen Peterson: The Owl Attack? (Part 5)

Episode Date: January 27, 2023

In the early hours of December 9th, 2001, a man named Michael Peterson made a panicked phone call to 911, telling them that his wife, 48 year old Kathleen Peterson, had fallen down the stairs and they should hurry because she was still breathing. Six minutes later he called back and reported that Kathleen was no longer breathing, she was gone. Initially, it appeared that this had been a tragic accident, but as first responders and law enforcement began to arrive at the scene, the tension was palpable. The Peterson family and friends felt that Michael was being unfairly targeted, that the police were only suspicious of him because he had been loudly outspoken and critical of the Durham North Carolina Police Department in his role as columnist for a local paper. The law enforcement professionals on the scene claimed that from the moment they walked in, it felt as if something wasn’t right, and there was far too much blood for the death of Kathleen Peterson to be attributed to a simple fall down the stairs. Try our coffee!! - www.CriminalCoffeeCo.com Become a Patreon member -- > https://www.patreon.com/CrimeWeekly Shop for your Crime Weekly gear here --> https://crimeweeklypodcast.com/shop Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/c/CrimeWeeklyPodcast Website: CrimeWeeklyPodcast.com Instagram: @CrimeWeeklyPod Twitter: @CrimeWeeklyPod Facebook: @CrimeWeeklyPod ADS: Beis Right now, BÉIS is offering our listeners 15% off your first purchase by visiting BEISTRAVEL.com/CRIMEWEEKLY Zocdoc Go to Zocdoc.com/CRIMEWEEKLY and download the Zocdoc app for FREE. Then find and book a top-rated doctor today. Many are available within 24 hours.

Craftsman days are here at Lowe's with big savings on the tools you need. Right now, get a free select tool when you buy the Craftsman V20 2-Pack Battery Kit. Whether it's the backyard, the bathroom, or beyond, Craftsman has the tools to help you power through and get the project done right. Because DIYing is unpredictable, but your tools shouldn't be. Shop Craftsman at Lowe's today. Valid through 618. While supplies last.

Selection varies by location. This podcast is sponsored by IQ Bar. I've got good news and bad news. Here's the bad news. Most protein bars are packed with sugar and unpronounceable ingredients. The good news? There's a better option. I'm Will, and I created IQ Bar plant protein bars to empower doers like you with clean, delicious, low-sugar brain and body fuel. IQ Bars are packed with 12

grams of protein, brain nutrients like magnesium and lion's mane, and zero weird stuff. And right now, you can get 20% off all IQ Bar products, plus free shipping. Try our delicious IQ Bar sampler pack with 7 plant protein bars, 4 hydration mixes, and 4 enhanced coffee sticks. Clean ingredients, amazing taste, and you'll love how you feel. Refuel smarter, hydrate harder, caffeinate larger with IQ Bar. Go to eatiqbar.com and enter code BAR20 to get 20% off all IQ Bar products, plus free shipping. Again, go to eatiqbar.com and enter code BAR20 to get 20% off all IQ Bar products plus free shipping. Again, go to EatIQBar.com and enter code BAR20.

Hello, everybody. Welcome back to Crime Weekly. I'm Stephanie Harlow. And I'm Derek Levasseur. So today we are finishing up with the Kathleen and Michael Peterson case. This is our last episode in this case series. And I kind of left off last week with the suggestion about, you know, something not being so transparent and upfront about Dwayne Deaver. So I kind of will lead into that with this. But before we do start, do you have anything you want to say? No, I'm looking forward to tonight. I'm starting to develop an opinion. I wanted to reserve judgment until this last part. And so I'm holding off on it just in case something changes

in my mind. But I feel pretty confident with what I'm going to say. But yeah, you always sometimes you throw things at me that I'm like, oh, OK, now now I'm not so confident. So we'll see. I think for the most part of the series, I'm stumbling on my words because I don't know really how to say this. But for the most of the series, I've been very unbiased. I tried to be and I really didn't show Michael Peterson's side of things too much. Like I pretty much showed like what the prosecution had, what their evidence was. And yeah, there was times where I was like, oh, that was shady.

And I didn't like that. But I really like focused from the prosecution's angle for the most part. And this time I'm going to go a little bit behind the curtain or behind the staircase, if you will, if you're Michael Peterson, and kind of talk about from his perspective, why the prosecution really did a horrible job and why I don't blame him for being upset and why if he is an innocent person, which there's a chance that he is, right? This completely destroyed every single atom and molecule of his life to a point where you don't really even understand. I mean, he lost his book

going into a movie deal as soon as he was charged. He went bankrupt because he paid out a civil suit to Caitlin Atwater. Obviously, nobody trusts him. He's not going to have any bestselling books because nobody wants to put a suspected murderer on the New York Times bestseller. So it really just destroyed his life. And there is a chance he's innocent. And I know there's a lot of people who believe wholeheartedly that he's guilty, but I still think in those people, there's a sliver inside of them where it's like, yeah, instinctually, I feel that he's guilty, but there is a chance he's innocent. And if he is, this sucks, right? This really sucks. So I really want everyone to keep that in mind. to testify as an expert witness during the Michael Peterson murder trial due to his extensive credentials and previous experience. So you get him up on the stand and you know how the lawyers do it. They're like, well, tell us how long you've been in this job and what did you do for school

and what training have you had? So he goes over it all in court and he said that he had gone to school for zoology. He'd been hired by the Raleigh Crime Lab in 1985, and he had started at the SBI Academy in 1986. And then it was in the fall of 1987 that he began taking classes in bloodstain analysis. Deaver claimed to have been hands-on in over 500 cases involving bloodstain pattern analysis. He said he had personally investigated 15 cases that had involved falls, and he'd written 200 papers on bloodstain analysis, as well as taught courses and gave lectures about bloodstain pattern analysis. At the time that he testified at Michael Peterson's murder trial, Dwayne Deaver claimed he was

one of only two people at the SBI with this level of training and experience. And he was actually personally responsible for the education and training of 20 other individuals, which I mean, is terrifying when you find out what we're about to find out. So Dwayne Deaver, he actually got pretty defensive when his credentials were cross-examined by Michael Peterson's lawyer, David Rudolph. You know, David's like, well, you went to school for zoology. What does animals have to do with humans and stuff like that? And Dwayne Deaver was like, shut up. Like, I got all my training for bloodstain pattern like when I was with the SBI.

Like, that has nothing to do with anything. But then David Rudolph brought up the fact that one of Duane Deaver's instructors had actually kind of been found out that she had exaggerated her credentials. And maybe she hadn't been qualified herself to be teaching others this science. And he got like super defensive. He was like, well, I don't know anything about that. But, you know, she was a good teacher. So basically what it looks like here is kind of like to go to a legal term that really isn't valid for what I'm about to say. But fruit of the poisonous tree, right?

One person teaches bad science. So this instructor teaches bad science to Duane Deaver. Duane Deaver goes on to teach bad science to 20 other people under him. And then we have a really corrupted sort of agency here that they think they know about blood pattern analysis, and they think that they know what they're doing, but they maybe necessarily don't exactly know what they're doing. And you have to consider when he went into blood stain pattern analysis in like the 80s, 1987, it was such a new cutting edge thing to begin with at this point. You know, the fact that they were even starting to use it

in trials and things like that was pretty new. And so he kind of grew with it, but it is more of like an interpretive thing rather than a science. And I think we kind of touched on that last episode that it has to be really perfect and you still might not be able to tell exactly what happened from the bloodstain patterns. Yeah. And I think that goes, unfortunately, with a lot of things in law enforcement where even voice analysis or sometimes they'll bring in people who are body language experts. Even handwriting analysis, it's not a science. It's not a science. And some people think that it is like, hey,

this automatically means no. It's subjective in some ways where, yeah, there's some standard protocol, but ultimately it's up to the person who's interpreting that information. And you could have two experts look at it and both see it in different ways. So I said this before, I'll say it again. Not only do expert witnesses have to be good at what they do, they have to be somewhat of a showman to kind of sell their interpretation to the jury because ultimately they're the ones that are going to decide which expert to believe. They're both giving their opinions. They both can't be right if they're on two different ends of the aisle.

So that's kind of what goes into being a good witness and being someone who is successful in those cases. I know if you've watched Breaking Homicide, forensic psychologists, they're very big in trials. And Chris Mohandy, Dr. Chris Mohandy, good friend of mine, he testifies all over the country for these cases. And he'll tell me right out how he'll be on the stand interpreting an interview that he conducted with a defendant or someone who's involved in the trial. And he's like,

I'm up there against someone else who is supposedly an expert and they don't know what the hell they're talking about, but you can tell they're saying what the team that hired them is wanting them to say. And he's like, it's discouraging. So yeah, with all of this stuff, not only blood spatter recognition, just in general, we always have to kind of look at it and make your own opinion based on the evidence, because you don't know what the underlying agenda is for some of these experts. So from seeing Deaver on the stand, for me, I think that the jury bought what he was saying because he was so confident. He bought what he was saying. The best liar believes their lies. And in this way, the best expert witness believes that what they're saying is 100 million percent true to the point where David Rudolph would be

questioning him and Dwayne Deaver would be indignant, almost like, what do you know, you stupid lawyer? I am the scientist. I am the one who's had all this training. What I am telling you is 100% true, and I'm insulted that you're even questioning me about it. There was, I think, three times that I noticed where David Rudolph asked Dwayne Deaver a question, and Dwayne Deever looked off into the distance and didn't even answer him. This isn't even worthy of a response. So I think that cockiness, that confidence almost gave the jury a false sense of confidence. This dude clearly knows his shit because he's insulted when the criminal defense lawyer is questioning him. And on that note, what does the criminal defense lawyer know? Why is he questioning this medical professional, this expert bloodstain pattern analysis guy? He should be indignant. So it really was this thing where together the jury and Dwayne Deaver were almost

like, David Rudolph shouldn't even be asking questions about this. Clearly Dwayne Deaver knows what he's talking about. And I really think that's where it came from. Because I mean, you see him, he's this bespectacled guy. He takes it very seriously. He talks very like monotone. He he's like exactly what you would think of if you looked, you thought of an expert witness who's talking about like any sort of like forensic science, he is what you would picture. And I'm glad you said that because sometimes when, when we frame things and even just when I was speaking, it's, I'm presenting it as, oh, they clearly know they're wrong. And yet they're still saying whatever they think they,

that people want them to say. No, there's the reality where both experts doing their job to the best of their ability, look at the data and come to two different conclusions. And the reason that they're able to do, like you just said, go on the stand and testify and sound so confident is because even though it doesn't necessarily have to be a lie in their mind, they might actually believe what they're saying, even if it's inaccurate. With Deaver, I think it's a little deeper than that. We've gone over the four episodes where there's clearly some negligence there at minimum, some negligence, probably more than that, where there's a clear attempt to just disregard certain things that he saw or heard. That's a problem, obviously, professionally and ethically when it comes to the trial. But in some cases, you could have two experts. We have it happen a lot with former law enforcement experts, use of force experts. There's so many police use of force experts out there and they're all that agrees with whatever narrative you're trying to push.

So with blood spatter, I would like to think DNA blood spatter, it's a little bit more of a science, but with use of force, it's based on a lot of the interpretation of the policy. So yeah, it's definitely an issue in our judicial system. It's not perfect, but it's definitely better than nothing. Yeah, I think Dwayne Deaver definitely probably believed what he was saying. Yeah. If you're taught improperly, you don't know any better. Right. And I think because of that self-righteousness, the evidence that came forward that didn't match that because he thought it was such a perfect science when it didn't match that. He was like, well, I have so much faith in my craft and what I'm doing here that this evidence must be an

outlier. So I'm just going to ignore it. It could have been one of those examples where we talk about detectives where they already have come to a conclusion. Now they're just trying to reverse engineer it from that conclusion. Oh, he definitely did it. So let's find the facts that support that and build in reverse instead of, hey, let's find the facts that support that and build in reverse instead of, hey, let's start on this trail of breadcrumbs and see where it leads us. So it doesn't only apply to detectives. It could happen with experts as well, where they're brought in and they look at the initial report and go, oh yeah, he definitely murdered her. And now they're going to build that case. It can happen with anyone. We're only human, right? Yep. But the key is to check

yourself and be a professional. Yeah. So either way, after hearing his credentials, the court decided based on Deaver's testimony that he was experienced enough to be an expert witness in the matter of bloodstain analysis for the trial. But then in 2011, Dwayne Deaver was fired from the SBI after an outside review of the SBI and their crime lab revealed that SBI agents had misrepresented evidence in more than 200 cases. And Deaver himself had given false testimony in 34 cases. The case that triggered this outside review was that of Greg Taylor, who was exonerated in 2010 and is actually considered the first person in the United States history to be declared innocent by a court of law instead of not guilty, as is usually the case. So with Greg Taylor, the way it went was in 1991, the body of 26-year-old Jaquetta Thomas was found stabbed and beaten to death in a Raleigh cul-de-sac. A Nissan Pathfinder that belonged to Greg Taylor was parked nearby, and when he returned to it the next day, he was arrested and charged with murder. Now, he told the police, listen, I had nothing to do with this murder. Me and my friend Johnny Beck, we were just smoking crack cocaine in my vehicle that night,

and we parked up a small dirt road off the cul-de-sac. But when we tried to leave, the Pathfinder got stuck in the mud and they couldn't get it free. So Taylor and Beck left on foot. Now, Greg Taylor said that he and his friend had seen what appeared to be a dead body in the cul-de-sac that night, but they had not informed the police, probably because they were smoking crack, right? And they're like, that's none of my business. I'm smoking crack. And they move on with their life. Although Greg Taylor insisted he had nothing to do with Jaquetta's murder,

he was put on trial, a trial during which SBI agent and bloodstain analysis expert, Dwayne Deaver testified that blood was found inside Taylor's vehicle. Based on that testimony, Greg Taylor was found guilty and sentenced to life in prison, where he stayed for 17 years until another man in prison confessed to Jaquetta's murder. A panel was put together to try and figure out how Greg Taylor could have been found guilty with so little evidence, and it was discovered that the one witness, Eva Kelly, who had claimed she'd seen

the victim, Jaquetta, get into Taylor's Pathfinder, she ended up admitting like, yeah, I actually didn't see that, but I made a deal with the prosecution to testify that I did see that. Now, according to Yahoo News, quote, Deaver also testified during the hearing and admitted that the SBI had conducted additional tests on Greg Taylor's vehicle, but had not shared those findings with the court. The SBI's DNA tests showed that what the prosecution had said was blood in the vehicle wasn't blood at all. Deaver said the SBI did not send the results of the later test to prosecutors or to the defense, so the results didn't appear in Greg Taylor's trial. What's more, he said that

holding back such blood tests, those that might exonerate defendants, was official SBI policy. The investigators were withholding evidence in every single case, end quote. That's a problem. Yeah. I don't really know what to say there. It's horrible to think that this person and many others may have been in prison for a crime they didn't commit. It's terrible. Many others. Yeah. And, you know, it's interesting because for me, if this is being deliberately done, I don't really think that having him lose his job is enough. I agree.

Should be criminally prosecuted for this, as well as anybody else that can be tied to not having direct knowledge of this type of behavior. And if you can go in there, have an outside review from some federal agents, whatever it might be, to kind of put the dots together and get these guys rolling on each other to find out who is, in fact, doing this, they should all be charged criminally. And it should be hefty because what it will do is deter people from doing it in the future. It's one thing just to hope that people are truthful and ethical. It's another thing to hold them accountable. It's kind of for those. This isn't a plug, but we were just talking about this on Crime Weekly News, which you should have already seen by now.

It's absolutely a plug. It's OK that it's a plug. Go watch Crime Weekly News. It's a plug. It's a plug. And we're talking about how we're discussing Alec Baldwin and how regardless of what happens in this, it's going to change policy on these movie sets. Well, this is a similar thing where if you find that an expert witness or an agency is doing something like this that's resulting in innocent people going to prison for crimes they didn't commit, there should be individuals going to prison and not for six months. It should be hefty. It should be severe

to deter people from doing it in the future. So yeah, I don't think him being fired is enough. It's incredible that they would do something like this, but I'm sure they're not the only individuals who are doing something like this because we do find other people who have gone to prison for crimes they didn't commit. And the only way to change that trajectory is to start holding people accountable other than just firing them. Yeah, I agree. And they always say like prison isn't a deterrent. And that may be the case in like murderers and stuff like that. But like, but I feel like prison is a deterrent for me. You know, like, I'm not going to commit like tax fraud, because I don't want to go to prison because I know that people do go to prison when they commit tax fraud.

You see Teresa Giudice and you're like, man, they're going after Teresa Giudice. No one's safe. No one's safe. They're going after her. Yeah. But it's like it's a deterrent, I think, for some of these like, you know, lesser things like and I don't mean lesser like they're not bad, but lesser than murder. Like maybe, yeah, maybe it's not a deterrent for murderers because a lot of murders happen as like a crime of passion thing or because they have a motive and they're hoping they get away.

But like lesser things, it's definitely a deterrent. And if these people start and I always think like like judges have judicial immunity and I don't think that they really should because then I think that they're going to take it more seriously when they let out a violent criminal on bail. I have spoken about that publicly. They qualify. They can't be charged for anything. They can't be held accountable for anything they do.

There's no accountability. So why would they even care? But people people get let out of prison and then let out on bail and then they go and reoffend and other people are dead. And who's responsible for that? You had a violent offender in your hands and you said, go on, run forward and prosper. Then someone needs to answer for that. Right. And I think if judges had to, they would take these decisions a little bit more seriously. world if they could prove definitively it goes to trial and you put someone like Deaver on the stand where it's found out through testimony from jury members, whatever, that his testimony, him stating that blood from the victim was found in this individual's vehicle was the deciding factor. Why shouldn't he do 18 years in prison? Eye for an eye.

Really simple. We don't have to think about it. It's not murder, like you said, but I would say losing 18 years of your life is pretty close to death when you're in there because you can't do anything. So I think the only fair thing is if you can pin it down to one specific thing, or even if it's multiple people

and their testimony or what they said, when they knew that that information was false, or even if they later learned it, if you are able to rule that person out that was found guilty, why wouldn't the people responsible for putting these innocent people in prison be held to the same standard and get 17, 18 years, just like the person who was unjustly found guilty of a crime they didn't commit? I think that's fair. It makes it simple, right? Yeah, I mean, it would never work

because then nobody would take that job. Yeah, no, it would never work. But see, that's the sad thing, right? Like I'm okay with expert witnesses who come forward and give an assessment and they might be wrong because that happens. They're human. Like you said, like you could look at it

and truly believe based on your training that that that's what it is. And it not be, I'm saying when you have something like this, where it comes out that there was information where they, they had already known it wasn't blood in that vehicle, but yet that information was just not related to anyone. He said, we never, we always keep, we always withhold this information. So he and everybody else who's, we should be held accountable criminally then because that's a terrible policy. Hey, if we find evidence that ultimately that's exculpatory and could free an innocent man, our policy is not to release that information and just let that person sit there forever. What? There has to be some stakes.

Yeah, something at stake for for for people involved in these. I agree. At minimum, there has to be some stakes. Yeah. Something at stake for people involved in these. I agree. At minimum, there has to be accountability for those individuals. And I think we will, it's not going to be perfect, but we can clean it up a little bit. Yeah. I think Dwayne Deaver got his job back too. I think he sued and got a lawyer and he got his job back. So there's that. So it was also found that Dwayne Deaver had greatly exaggerated his actual experience. And the things that Deaver did in these cases where he got in trouble for, like he did that in Michael Peterson's case. He would refer to stains as blood when they stains, but they don't know because they haven't tested them chemically to make sure that they are blood. So they can't say these are blood stains. Deaver had no such hangups. He was like, that's a blood stain. Absolutely, it's a blood stain, even though they hadn't been confirmed to be blood. And his experiments failed to follow

basic scientific methods. So essentially, he worked backwards from a theory, the prosecution's theory. And that theory was that Kathleen Peterson had been beaten to death with a blow poke. So Deaver conducted his experiments that weren't scientific to begin with, such as like hitting a bloody sponge over and over again. And he would replicate those experiments until he got the blood spatter pattern that he wanted. So it wasn't like, let me do this experiment so I can show you what type of blood spatter pattern this experiment makes. It was like, let me do this experiment until I get the exact right angle where the blood spatter pattern that we see at the scene is going to be replicated. And it was just very clear what he was doing. And you could even hear him in some of

these videos because they showed videos of the experiments of the jury. And after doing it like several times, finally, he like got it right. I think it was like the eighth or ninth time. And he was like, yeah. And he like high-fived the other guy. And I was like, what? Like they just scored a goal or like their team just made it to the Super Bowl. And it was like, this is awkward. It's like we won. We were able to replicate this bloodstain pattern after multiple attempts. That's not good science. It's the opposite of good science. Yeah. I mean, I don't like the – you could tell that there's a personal investment there, which would obviously cloud judgment. So yeah, I'm with you. I don't like it either. So I want to tell you more about all the bad things Dwayne Deaver did, but let's take a quick break first and we'll be right back. This podcast is sponsored by IQ Bar. I've got good news and bad news. Here's the bad news. Most protein bars are packed with sugar and unpronounceable ingredients. The good news,

there's a better option. I'm Will and I created IQ Bar plant protein bars to empower doers like you with clean, delicious, low sugar brain and body fuel. IQ Bars are packed with 12 grams of protein, brain nutrients like magnesium and lion's mane and zero weird stuff. And right now you can get 20% off all IQ Bar products, plus free shipping. Try our delicious IQ Bar sampler pack with 7 plant protein bars, 4 hydration mixes, and 4 enhanced coffee sticks. Clean ingredients, amazing taste, and you'll love how you feel. Refuel smarter, hydrate harder, caffeinate larger with IQ Bar.

Go to eatiqbar.com and enter code BAR20 to get 20% off all IQ Bar products, plus free shipping. Again, go to eatiqbar.com and enter code BAR20. Okay, we're back. Still talking about Dwayne Deaver. So additionally, Deaver said the blood stains on Michael Peterson's shorts showed that he had beaten Kathleen to death. We talked about that. But during the trial, when he was asked if there'd been any blood found on the navy blue shirt that Michael had been wearing that night, Deaver said he didn't know. He said the material of the shirt was too dark to see blood, so he didn't use it as evidence. David Rudolph said to Deaver, like, listen,

did you know you could have done a lumilite test to show blood on the dark material? And Deaver said, yeah, actually, I believe a lumelight test was done on the shirt. And to his knowledge, it had not turned up any blood, which is huge because you'd expect to see blood on Michael Peterson's shirt if he was violently beating his wife to death, you know, one. And two, the prosecution had not delivered the results of this Lumalight test to the defense. David Rudolph asked Deaver, like, are you sure that this Lumalight test was done? And Deaver was like, yeah. And David Rudolph was like, well, did you write a report on this Lumalight test?

And Deaver was like, yes. And he was like, did you give to the prosecution? And Deaver was like, yes. And it's so funny. In the Staircase documentary, you can see when Deaver says this, they pan over to Frida Black, one of the prosecutors, and she's looking at Deaver like this. I know you can't see me on audio, but she's like, her eyes get so wide. I don't know what the look is because honestly, I don't know. I could not tell you if Deaver is lying about writing the report

and that's why she's looking at him like that. Like, what the hell are you talking about? You didn't give us a report. Or if she's like, shut up, Deaver. Shut up. Don't talk about the Lumalight test. Either way, apparently a Lumalight test was done, which showed no blood on Michael Peterson's shirt. And, you know, there's no report to be found in the prosecution's notes. They didn't

turn anything over to the defense. So either Deaver purposely withheld information, as remember, in 2011, he said the FBI does that. They do that. Anytime there's evidence that, you know, exonerates the defendant, they'll just hold it back. And that's pretty commonplace. Either he did that and didn't give it to the prosecution prosecution or he did give it to the prosecution and the prosecution was like, nah, we're not going to pass this along to the defense. Well, I mean, think about it. It's one of those things where we were saying earlier, where this evidence could help Michael Peterson. Exculpatory.

It's exculpatory. So it doesn't help what he's trying to do, right? Which is prove that Michael Peterson killed his wife. So you may forget to write that in your report. May forget to update that one where it's like, oh, you know what? There's nothing on the blood, but we can explain that away. It's possible he, the angle in which her head was, you know, being struck that it would go this way. That it's perfectly reasonable. And that's how they justify it. And I think that's a big deal because even if you're hitting her with a blow poke, which we already have decided, I think that's not possible. And there was multiple instances where Dwayne Deaver was doing these

experiments with the blow poke and the blow poke was breaking because it's a thin hollow tube made out of like a very lightweight sort of material. I don't know what it is. It's like a metal, but it's light and it's hollow. So yeah, like if you hit it hard, it's going to break. The blow poke was constantly breaking in this dude's experiments. And yet he failed to think that that was relevant, that like the blow poke could have broken while Michael Peterson was hitting Kathleen with it. So whether you look at it as, oh, he used a blow poke, which we don't think he did, or he was beating her head against the stairs, which is kind of like my theory, if it happened, that's what happened. Either way, if you're beating her head against the stairs,

you've got to be down close enough to her, like bent over her where you can, you know, in arm's reach, you're going to get blood on your shirt. You're going to get blood on your shirt. But there was no blood on his shirt. So some people have said like, oh, well, he must have changed his shirt before first responders got there. Well, then where's the other shirt? Where's the other shirt? Because the first responders got there, the police came, they locked it down, they collected evidence, I'm sure. And they went into all the bedrooms, they looked through that, they looked through hampers and stuff. They would have found a shirt with blood on it. Where did the shirt with blood on it go?

Who were the people that were there early in the night and saw me? Exactly. Todd and Christina were like, yeah, that was the shirt he was wearing earlier too. So, yeah. Unless he like changed. If it was like really premeditated, like he pulled an American Psycho where he like put the plastic, like what do you call those things? Ponchos.

Like he put that over. Yeah. I mean, now we're talking. Like a Tyvek suit sort of thing. Yeah. No. Or he like had two navy blue shirts. over. Yeah. I mean, now we're talking. Like a Tyvek suit sort of thing. Yeah. No. Or he like had two Navy blue shirts. Okay. Or he was like, I'll wear this when everyone's here and then I'll take it off, kill her and put it back on. But like, come on, man, we already have decided we don't see how this could possibly be that premeditated because it was a mess of a scene.

So additionally, in Michael Peterson's case, there were multiple instances of changes happening between photos being taken. So for instance, in one photo of the kitchen area, there was a drop of blood that was not seen in another photo of the same area that was taken on the same day. And when asked about these changes, SBI agent Dan George told David Rudolph that he'd been informed that spot was just a photo glitch and not actually a drop of blood. And Rudolph asked George if he'd informed the prosecution or Dwayne Deaver of the fact that this mark was not blood, but a photo glitch. And George said he didn't believe he'd informed anybody about that fact. And, you know, the whole time they were using this glitch as a drop of blood in their analysis.

There's also photos of the staircase that showed what they call skeletonized bloodstains. Basically, it's a bloodstain pattern that can happen if blood's allowed to partially dry before it's wiped up. So since the blood tends to be thinner at the edge of the drops, this edge portion dries first, leaving liquid in the middle. So it looks like kind of skeletonized. But some of those bloodstain patterns showed normally in one picture and then skeletonized in the next. And this was after the scene had been sealed off and Michael Peterson had been removed from the home. So clearly it hadn't been Michael who'd been wiping the drying blood. It happened when the crime scene

text had started processing the scene. And you might say like, oh, who cares? You know, like Michael Peterson already admitted to wiping up blood. Yeah, he admitted to wiping up some blood. But the whole fact of the matter is like you have to keep the integrity of the crime scene. Like when you take pictures that are then going to be used for a bloodstain analysis, which is going to decide whether somebody spends the rest of their life in prison, you better make sure that scene wasn't altered from the moment you saw it. Like that's it. And it was prison, you better make sure that scene wasn't altered from the moment you saw it. Like, that's it. And it was altered, you know, in multiple instances. Additionally, the footprints that were allegedly in blood walking all over the place suggesting that

Michael Peterson had staged the scene after Kathleen's death, those footprints had been supposedly cleaned up, but there were no wipe marks and the mop in the house tested negative for blood. And there was no evidence that the footprints have ever existed because no photos had been taken of them after the luminol had been placed. So basically it's just in somebody's notes where they're like, oh yeah, there's footprints all over the place. But to me, it doesn't make sense how you could say there's footprints in luminol, but not say that the footprints looked as if they'd been cleaned up. You can either see them with the naked eye and you can see that they're there or they've been cleaned up and you can see them with luminol. I know what you're saying. Maybe the wording they used, because yeah, you can have something where to the human eye,

you can't see anything. But then obviously when you spray luminol and you apply the light, you have this clear pattern of wherever the blood was before it was cleaned. So I get what you're saying. It probably was a misuse of words because, yeah, no, you would see the luminol. And even if that were the case, because it's in luminol, you would absolutely take photos of that because there's no way to replicate that later, so you would want to have he drew a picture he drew a picture no no no no you need you need photo evidence yeah he drew he drew a picture of them yeah you'd want placards out there you'd want to take photo evidence you'd want to have scales present because it's a pretty big thing you think like footprints that are suggesting somebody staged the scene why are you not taking photos of it when you're taking photos of every other damn thing in there? Why not that? Well, because also it would show like it would give the jury and everybody else kind of an indication of not only the amount of blood that was present, but also depending on how much was seen by when it aluminum enhanced the blood, you might be able to see a general size of the shoe print where you could put a scale next to it, compare that to Michael Peterson's shoe print to see if it may be, could it have been Kathleen who walked around for a couple seconds before

she fell or whatever? I don't know. I'm just throwing random things out there. Or like an intruder, right? Or an intruder theory or something like that. The main reason the prosecution said it couldn't have been an intruder because they were like, oh, there would have been bloody footprints like fleeing the scene. Yeah.

Well, you're saying there were. Yeah. I would definitely expect to see anytime there's a footprint or a tire tread mark or anything that's on the ground that you're going to eventually have to remove. You absolutely do. We are always trained to do a drawing and it's a rough sketch. It doesn't have to be to scale. The main detective will go in there and they'll be responsible for sketching everything out on's a rough sketch. It doesn't have to be to scale the, the main detective will go in there and there'll be responsible for sketching everything out on like a sketch pad

so that you can kind of have an idea of where everything was before it was moved. You're also supposed to take a video of the entire crime scene before touching anything. Every space, one person goes through, takes video evidence of every single nook and cranny. You usually shut off the audio and you just film so that you can put anyone who wants to go back there back in that moment before the scene was processed. Then after you do video, you'll go around and you'll have placards out and you'll take video photos of everything with scales and any type of marking that may indicate size. If you don't have a scale, then at that point you can start collecting things for evidence.

But all of that, it's kind of like this redundancy to make sure no matter what comes at you during trial, you can show that to the jury so they understand what law enforcement and what first responders were seeing when they were there. Exactly. And that wasn't done. So it's like you can't even really use it because for all we know, you could just made that up. That's the point. Like, yeah, it's a problem. I'm not saying you made it up, but you could have. A sketch pad isn't enough. Oh yeah, there was a footprint here. Okay.

But how, how do we know that? How do we know what you saw couldn't have been looked at today and been ruled out as a bloody footprint? And maybe there's times where with luminol testing, especially cleaning agents can, can enhance a luminol testing, especially cleaning agents can enhance a luminol reaction. So what you can have is, especially on a floor, if they're using some type of cleaning solution to clean their floors, you may get a reaction from luminol that could potentially look like something that it's not. So that's another, you can have a false positive. And that's why you really want to document what you see with your eye on camera so that down the road, if it's ever in question, other experts can come in and take a look at it as well. I think that, you know, with the fact that we know the SBI plays all loosey goosey, like important evidence, I'm not going to put it past them that they just maybe thought they saw footprints or thought what they thought looked like footprints or whatever.

But I don't even know if those footprints were ever there. But like I said, this revelation triggered a massive audit of the SBI. And once again, it was found that the SBI had misrepresented evidence in more than 200 criminal cases between 1987 and 2003, and Dwayne Deaver himself had personally been involved with 34 of them. And this also triggered many cases to be relooked at, including Michael Peterson's, but I also want to talk about Mike Niefong, the assistant DA at the time of Michael going to trial, because he's a sketchy guy too. So on March 13th, 2006, Crystal Magnum, who was a North Carolina Central student who worked as a part-time stripper, attended a party at an off-campus house where captains of the Duke lacrosse team lived. She was there for work,

and later she claimed she'd been forced into a bathroom and raped. Three members of the lacrosse team were arrested and charged with first-degree forcible rape, first-degree sexual offense, and kidnapping. And later that year, due to inconsistencies in the stories of Crystal and another woman who was with her, the rape charges were dropped by the then-district attorney Mike Nifong, but the other charges stood. Now, Mike Nifong would be disbarred in 2007 after he himself was found guilty of multiple ethics violations for his handling of that investigation. He was found guilty of fraud, dishonesty, making false statements of material fact before a judge,

and lying about withholding exculpatory evidence, specifically DNA evidence. In 2016, a man named Daryl Howard, who'd been convicted of murdering two people in 1991, was exonerated by DNA. Durham police detective Daryl Dowdy was accused of fabricating evidence, and it was discovered that once again, in that case, Mike Nifong withheld evidence from the defense. Once again, this is a problem. So now what I'm seeing is I can't trust the Durham DA, I can't trust the Durham police, and I cannot trust the SBI because they've all been found guilty on multiple occasions of doing shady shit that put innocent people or potentially innocent people behind bars. So when Michael Peterson was writing all of those articles, like saying that Durham was corrupt, like was he that far off? Because it looks like Durham's corrupt and I don't want to be arrested there. Like I'll tell you that much. I'm not like if you asked me, where's the one place you don't want to be arrested? I'd be like abroad because ain't nobody trying to get locked up abroad. And Durham, North Carolina. Do not arrest me there.

So we're not going to visit Durham, North Carolina anytime soon? No, man. Especially now after this episode comes out. They're looking for you. They'll find something. They'll find some trumped up charges to put me in. Stephanie Harlow, famous YouTuber, arrested for three kilos of cocaine found in her truck. Yeah.

Yeah, I would not literally put it past them so this is derek they got me they finally got me i was just driving through and he said oh stephanie harlow it's like as soon as my car like drives over the border of durham north carolina they get like a ding ding ding ding in the police station and they're like we're we're on it, boys. She's here. We're finally going to get her. You know, I don't know if that's how they talk. It's North Carolina, but it's not like the deep south. Sorry.

Oh, yeah. I'm sure some people in North Carolina speak like that. Don't be too mad at me. Yeah, all the kids can't wait to see the comments now. Oh, well. Yo, Jim Harden kind of talked. The DA went in Michael Peterson's trial. He kind of talked like that.

He was like a good old Southern boy. Yeah know it depends it all depends on your upbringing because even me like i had a pretty strong rhode island accent and i just lost it it depends on you lost it or you made yourself lose it i i don't i didn't intentionally do it but yeah i lost it i think it's just being on television and stuff and having to pronounce your words because they don't really like when you sound like they can't understand what you're saying. So I feel like I was articulating what I was saying more and it just slowly went away, I guess. I don't know.

That Rhode Island boy comes out sometimes. Sometimes, yeah. So before we move on away from the people and agencies involved in the Peterson trial who've been caught in bad and unprofessional behavior, let's talk about the medical examiner's office because I'm going scorched earth here today. You really are. And the Winston, I'm like over it, honestly. Stephanie was also a researcher for Michael Peterson's defense team. You just didn't know it. Should have been. She was a private contractor. And so she's dropping ether tonight. I'm just like, I'm so disgusted,

honestly, because he could be guilty, but we'll never know because they screwed this up. So in the Winston-Salem Journal from a May 2014 article titled Problems Found with North Carolina Medical Examiner Findings, quote, across North Carolina, medical examiners fail to follow crucial investigative steps, raising questions about the accuracy of thousands of death rulings. The living face the consequences. Widows can be cheated out of insurance money. Families may never learn why their loved ones died. Killers can go free. Because of a medical examiner's mistake, Cherokee County resident Kathy Wilson had her husband's body dug up to show that he was killed by a car accident rather than a heart attack.

Shannon Santamore had to fight for three days in court to prove that her husband did not commit suicide. After a medical examiner concluded that David Worley died in a Hartnett County car wreck last July, a funeral home discovered what the medical examiner missed, four stab wounds in his back. So the medical examiner said this dude died from a car accident and apparently didn't look at the body at all because the guy had four stab wounds in his back. Continuing with the article, his widow is now charged with killing him. The Observer's investigation, entailing the most comprehensive analysis of state death rulings ever conducted, found that examiners regularly close cases without following recommended practices. Medical examiners fail to examine bodies in one of every nine cases,

despite state rules that require them to view every corpse. Nine times out of 10, medical examiners don't visit death scenes, a step that national investigators say is key to investigations. Medical examiners are called in to investigate when the stakes are highest. Suspicious, violent, accidental, and unattended deaths. Those account for about 10,000 of the roughly 75,000 deaths in North Carolina each year. But the state doesn't require examiners to get training and rarely disciplines them when they break the rules. Dr. Deborah Reddish, where do we know that name from, the state's chief medical

examiner, looks like she got promoted, acknowledged the shortcoming in death investigations and blamed them on a lack of money. We're trying to do the best we can with what we have, she said. Last year, the state's failings and sloppy paperwork proved deadly. After an elderly couple died in the same night in a Boone hotel room, the local medical examiner did not go to the scene. He also didn't alert the state toxicology lab in Raleigh about the mysterious circumstances or ask the test to be rushed. It took the state nearly six weeks to determine that carbon monoxide killed the couple. Even then, no one warned the public. The next weekend, the poisonous gas leaked into the hotel room again and killed 11-year-old Jeffrey Williams.

End quote. Imagine you're the parent of Jeffrey Williams and you knew that these two old people had died from carbon monoxide poisoning and how easy, how easy it would be to figure that out. And yet they just didn't do it because, I don't know, lack of funding? Is that really the answer we're going with? Okay, they just didn't do it. And now your son's dead because somebody didn't do their job. Can you imagine that this guy dies with four stab wounds in his back? And they say he died from a car accident because they clearly didn't even look at like, how as a medical examiner do you miss four stab wounds in somebody's back? The lady who killed that dude was probably like, I don't understand how I got away with this, but shit.

The medical examiner's office in North Carolina is pretty bad, so maybe I have a chance. I guess the moral of the story is if the testimony of Dwayne Deaver and the blood stain analysis convinced you of Michael Peterson's guilt, you're probably basing your decision off of incredibly faulty science. And when someone looks like the good guy, for instance, DA Mike Nifong, they're still capable of doing bad things. And when someone seems like they know what they're talking about, or they have an aura of being an expert in the field, things may not always be what they seem. So like use critical thinking all the time and don't just believe what they say because they look like they're on the right team or because they look like they think they know what they're talking about. Let's take a quick break and then I want

you to tell me what you think about all of this. This podcast is sponsored by IQ Bar. I've got good news and bad news. Here's the bad news. Most protein bars are packed with sugar and unpronounceable ingredients. The good news, There's a better option. I'm Will, and I created IQ Bar Plant Protein Bars to empower doers like you with clean, delicious, low-sugar brain and body fuel. IQ Bars are packed with 12 grams of protein, brain nutrients like magnesium and lion's mane, and zero weird stuff. And right now, you can get 20% off all IQ Bar products, plus free shipping. Try our delicious IQ Bar sampler pack

with seven plant protein bars, four hydration mixes, and four enhanced coffee sticks. Clean ingredients, amazing taste, and you'll love how you feel. Refuel smarter, hydrate harder, caffeinate larger with IQ Bar. Go to eatiqbar.com and enter code BAR20 to get 20%

off all IQ Bar products plus free shipping. Again, go to eatiqbar.com and enter code BAR20. All right, so we're back. I'll weigh in quick because you really laid it out where there's really not much to dispute. The only thing I can say is what are those people thinking when these things are happening? You talk about the stab wounds. Is it just straight negligence where they're just ineptness and they don't know how to do their job? Is it something more where they're, they're seeing it and deliberately deciding not to document it? I don't know. I don't know, but either way, it's not a good thing. It shouldn't happen in any situation. So it's unacceptable period. Uh, but there, there are cases where, you know, that old saying, like, even if, you know what they call someone who graduates from, where they see, goes to medical school?

Doctor. You know, they still get the same degree. Not everyone is created equal. Detectives, police officers, lawyers, doctors, you know, even if they're a doctor, it doesn't mean they're a good doctor, right? They might have barely skated by. They might not be very good at what they do, or they could have been good at what they do at some point. And just over the years, whatever happened happened and they're just not anymore. So a lot of reasons as to the why, but regardless of what the why might be, it's still unacceptable and shouldn't happen.

So really at the end of the day, it doesn't matter. We were a results-based society where we're going to judge you on your work. And this is just shoddy work and it shouldn't happen because people's lives are at stake. I mean, honestly, I just think it's like most likely negligence. Like we don't have time, too much going on. And she kind of said it, right? Funding, you know, so they're rushing through them. They're trying to get them. They're putting it on not having the manpower to complete the autopsies the right way, which is not an excuse.

So it's not. But I'm with you. So it's one of those things where the why really doesn't matter, but that's the only thing I can say about it because the facts are the facts and they don't look good. And honestly, I just don't feel comfortable looking at any case that was tried with all of these clowns involved and being like, absolutely, I know they sucked and made mistakes in every other case, but this one, they were probably just completely above board. Like we've already figured out that they weren't. So I can't take anything that happened in this trial and use it as, you know, fact. And that's concerning. That's difficult. But in 2011, Michael Peterson was

released from prison on bail pending a retrial after the blood spatter evidence used against him was ruled as being inadmissible. And then in 2017, he accepted an Alford plea rather than go to trial again. But through it all, he has maintained his innocence, saying, quote, accepting this Alford plea has been the hardest thing I've ever done, end quote. Judge Orlando Hudson, who had both presided over the original trial and made the decision in 2011 that Michael Peterson should get a new trial, he said, quote, I think over time the introduction of the death in Germany was very prejudicial to the defendant. I thought that all the homosexual evidence, however it was used, would have been unduly prejudicial to the defendant. I thought that all the homosexual evidence, however it was used, would have been unduly prejudicial to the defense and probably shouldn't have come into

evidence. And I believe ultimately a fair and reasonable juror could make a different decision than was made by the first jury, end quote. Dude, wasn't he the one that was like, yeah, you can have this in? Like, wasn't he the one who made the decision to allow the bisexual evidence to come in? That's funny. Maybe he regrets that now. Hindsight's 20-20. So let's talk about now what everyone's waited for, the owl theory. The owl theory, which was first proposed by lawyer and Peterson neighbor Larry Pollard. For nearly two decades, Pollard has talked about his theory that a barred

owl is responsible for the death of Kathleen Peterson. Now, Larry Pollard is not only a lawyer, but a lifelong hunter who claims to have a lot of knowledge about animal tracks and bleeding patterns from hunting. And when he first saw Kathleen's autopsy photos, he noticed that the wounds in the back of her head looked like scratches, but not scratches from a human, scratches from talons. Pollard believes that Kathleen was attacked by the barred owl outside her home sometime after midnight on December 9, 2001. She'd left Michael Peterson at the pool and started to go inside when she made a detour to the front yard to place some reindeer statue decorations. Pollard believes that an owl may have imprinted on the reindeer

lawn ornaments because he said that there's barred owls living in the barn on the Peterson property, and that's where the reindeer lawn ornaments and the Christmas decorations were usually stored until Christmas time. And so I guess like the owl got like an idea that he was real close to this reindeer statue and so felt threatened when Kathleen grabbed it. Imprinting is a form of learning in which an animal gains its sense of species identification. Basically like I know I'm an owl because I see other owls around me. Birds, like owls, don't know what they are immediately after they hatch. They need to visually imprint on their parents during a critical period of development, and after imprinting, they will identify as that species for life. Imprinting for wild birds is crucial to their

immediate and long-term survival. So listen, I don't know how much I believe in this imprinting for wild birds is crucial to their immediate and long-term survival. So listen, I don't know how much I believe in this imprinting theory of Larry Pollard's because that would mean that you're telling me that for its life, this one barred owl thought it was a wooden reindeer. And I just don't believe that. But what I do think is possible is that if this is what happened, while she was in the barn rifling around and grabbing them, she may have disturbed the owls or maybe there were owls outside in the trees that

she disturbed. Pollard believes that Kathleen removed the reindeer from the barn that night and started placing them in her yard, at which point she was attacked by the large bird. She wrestled with the owl and managed to pull it from her head. She then ran inside to safety using the front door because head wounds are bleeding so much. And so rapidly as she ran up the stairs, she slipped on her own blood, not only from the stairs being slippery, but because she was wearing those plastic clear flip-flops and because she had alcohol as well as anti-anxiety medication and muscle relaxers in her system. So she's running up the stairs, she slips and falls down the stairs.

According to Larry Pollard, Kathleen slipped and fell three times. The third time she slipped, he believes that she hit her head into the molding at the bottom of the staircase, which may have rendered her unconscious. And there she lay in a pool of her own blood until her husband discovered her. Now, the evidence to support this theory is actually pretty plentiful, considering how bizarre it sounds at first. First, the autopsy showed that Kathleen Peterson had strands of her own hair in her hands, and a later SBI report noted that she also had a microscopic feather intermingled with her hair in her hands. Larry Pollard says that owls are the only species of bird in the entire world that have these microscopic feathers, and Kate Davis, executive director of Raptors of the Rockies, a Montana-based

nonprofit, is also convinced that Kathleen was attacked by an owl, saying that their feet are covered with these microscopic feathers. Davis was being interviewed for a attacked by an owl, saying that their feet are covered with these microscopic feathers. Davis was being interviewed for a story about an owl attacking a boy who was sledding when she was asked to examine the evidence in Kathleen Peterson's case, and we're going to talk about some of her opinions throughout this theory because she does pop up. Kathleen also had pine needles on her hand, if you remember from the autopsy, and there was a twig found in the dried blood on her body. Actually, the twig was found on her head. The pine needles and twig could have been attached to the owl when it swooped from its tree and attacked.

Second, barred owls are common in Durham, North Carolina, and there have been multiple records of barred owl attacks on humans. It's been proven that barred owls were living in the woods surrounding the Peterson home. According to multiple experts, barred owls are aggressive and highly territorial. They traditionally nest in the cavities of trees, but because of the intense deforestation, confrontations between barred owls and humans are more common since these forests that allowed the birds to remain secluded are shrinking very fast. Wildlife biologist Jonathan Slate says, quote, The more you reduce the places where an owl can nest, the more likely it's going to be nesting somewhere in close proximity to humans.

If they're kind of amped up and a fox walks by, a deer walks by, a human walks by, whatever, they'll pop down and try to chase it off. End quote. A woman named Kristen Matheson was attacked by a barred owl in Washington, and she said the attack was fast and silent, but violent. She said, quote, it felt like getting punched in the back of the head by someone wearing rings. End quote. And when she got home, she discovered that her scalp was caught and bloodied. But that same barred owl attacked Kristen again. And this time it left behind five or six deeper cuts that were far more bloody. Additionally, the barred owl is monogamous and strongly territorial, especially during the breeding season, which begins in the late winter in North Carolina, which would have been right around the time that Kathleen Peterson died. Third, neither the defense nor the prosecution could explain the lacerations on Kathleen's scalp, which seemed too deep for an accidental fall, but not deep enough for a violent beating.

The trident-shaped lacerations on Kathleen's head does match the talons of a barred owl, however, and they can attack with the same amount of force that would create a blunt force injury like the ones Kathleen had. A 2014 study published in the Journal of Experimental Biology notes that an owl weighing less than one pound can pounce on a mouse with force equivalent to 150 times the weight of the rodent. If a 175-pound human being were struck with that same force and intensity, it would feel as if they were being hit by a 13-ton truck. And barred owls are a larger owl species, with the smallest of them weighing one pound, and they can grow as large as two and a half pounds. The barred owl can also fly at speeds of up to 40 miles per hour.

Additionally, they are known to dive bomb humans. For instance, in 2015, there were repeated barred owl attacks on joggers in Salem, Oregon, and the victims of these attacks had the owls swoop down at their heads, and they suffered from multiple half-inch talon cuts on their scalps. At least two of the wounds on Kathleen's scalp were in the shape of owl talons. And it's funny because those owls in Salem, Oregon, they called it owl capone. Owl capone because they just kept attacking these joggers. And they said they thought that when the joggers were running, like their hair bouncing looked like their prey. They didn't know they were humans. Owls won't attack humans. They usually make mistakes. They either feel threatened or they make a mistake and think you're like an animal of prey. Like I said, I don't know if I said it in the last episode, I feel like I did. Owls scare the shit out of me, man. They do not mess around. They are,

they're murderers, okay? Like not of humans usually, but they are really like savage with their prey. Fourth, the additional wounds on Kathleen's face and body are consistent with an owl attack. In an interview with a Raleigh news station, Larry Pollard said, quote, The other wounds that are on her body seem to give a compelling case to this having been done by an owl. The injuries to the eyes and the injuries to the elbows and the little puck marks on her wrists, here and here, all are consistent with her having her hands over her head, holding onto her hair because something is grasping her hair. End quote. Additionally, experts, owl experts, claim that the tiny wounds on Kathleen's face are consistent with the tip of an owl's beak pecking.

Fifth, the blood outside and inside the house may support the owl theory. According to police photos, there were drops of blood on the outside walkway leading to the front door of the house, and there was a large smear of blood on the outside of the front door frame, also shown in police photos. And remember, when the paramedics arrived, they saw this blood at that point, and they also noted that the front door was wide open. Michael and Kathleen had been at the back of the house. He entered the house through the back and there'd be no reason for the front door to be open unless Kathleen had run through it earlier that night in a frantic state, leaving the door open behind her because it was

more important to get to safety than to shut the door. Advocates of this theory also claim the evidence shows that Kathleen was bleeding before she got to the staircase due to those drops of blood outside and that the blood was spattered up of the staircase rather than down the staircase. And the fact that there was blood on the bottom of her feet showed that Kathleen had stood up in her own blood at some point. The front door was open, if I remember correctly, right? Yeah, it was. Yeah. Oh, man. Yeah's there's some compelling evidence there honestly there really really is uh i can see why there's a group of people who believe this because it does explain some of the things uh that we're questioning in this uh in

this case and the way it's laid out the way you just laid it out as far as the twig and the shape of the cuts and the blood on the front door and the door being ajar. Why would that feather in her hand, the feather in her hand, that micro feather in her hand? There's a lot there that because it's so rare to have this whole situation play out the way it did. It's almost so too hard to believe, which is why they went with the husband killed her. But damn, I'm kind of speechless i didn't know those i didn't know those facts to be i wish i had more to say but i'm like holy shit that you're processing that's absolutely possible that that happened based on what we said there i

guess if i'm gonna like call out a couple things you know the owl comes in through the front door with her right like if she's attacked no's attacked, all the injuries happen outside and then she runs in. So the owl wouldn't be inside the house for later to be captured, right? I'm trying to poke holes in this, not because I don't want to believe it, but because I want to be skeptical of this theory to try to say, hey, there's some issues here. The owls are gonna like attack defensively but they're not gonna like pursue like an owl's not gonna chase you into your house but if an owl feels threatened it will like fuck you up you know and then and then you know you'll run away but they they fly so quietly they have these like specific feathers that are like sort of like sharp

almost like a razor on one end. And it makes it so that they can fly through the air silent. They scare the shit out of me. They fly through the air silently. So you don't even know it's coming. Like remember that one lady said, and she felt like she got punched in the head, in the back of the head by somebody who was wearing rings. They come out of nowhere and they're like, bam, attack your head. Usually because you have hair and they think you're like an animal, another animal. So they'll bang, attack your head and you don't even know what's happening. And all you need to do, because you don't even realize it's an owl at first, is you're lifting your hands to protect

yourself and trying to grab whatever it is. Then you figure out it's a bird and you're like trying to pull it off, but they will latch on too. I just saw a TikTok where two owls in, I think it was like an owl farm or something, I don't know. They got latched together because they tailed each other and nobody would let go. So they have very, very strong feet and they will latch on and she would be trying to pull it off, which is why they're saying she had hair on her hands, her own hair in her hands, and then the feather in her hand. And that's where the pine needles came from. And honestly, the reindeer ornaments being there did stand out to me because remember, Kathleen was mad that she had the conference call the next day because they were supposed

to decorate for Christmas. So they hadn't decorated for Christmas yet. It was supposed to be happening that Sunday. So on her way in, she's probably like, well, I'm just pull these out while I'm here. While I'm outside, I, I'm just pull these out while I'm here. You know, while I'm outside, I'm just gonna pull these out and put the reindeer ornaments out in the lawn. And then at least I'll have done that. And that'll be one less thing I have to do tomorrow. And it'll kind of make up for the time that I have to be on the conference call. Maybe she planned to do that because they had not started decorating for Christmas yet. So it does appear that those reindeer ornaments went up that night. Yeah,. I still

think that theory sounds incredible, the way it's laid out and how it's supported by some of the evidence that we know to be true. I will say, I know the house is big. I've seen the satellite image and I know where Michael allegedly was in the backyard with the pool and she was in the front. I still would think at that time of night, even in a big home, I don't live in a mansion, but even in a big home, if someone was screaming in a mansion, but you know, even in a big home, if you're, if someone was screaming and I guess you could argue that she wasn't yelling because she was surprised, but if she was being attacked, I would think she would scream. And if it were quiet outside, I, if Michael had heard something, he absolutely would have said that in his testimony, because it would have supported this, this owl theory. Like, Hey,

I heard her yelling. I heard her screaming. So I ran inside and I found her. That would be more believable. The fact that this was done by the silent attacker, which the owl was able to attack her and she didn't make a single noise or he didn't hear it. So they did tests with microphones and everything out by the pool with the fountain on as it was. And no, you can't hear anything. You can't hear anything, huh? They even had mics and stuff.

What's more, I don't want to say concerning, but what's more surprising to me is no neighbors would hear her screaming. Nobody. You can't hear out back by the pool. I don't know how close the nearest house is, though. I know Larry Pollard lived right next door. So I don't know how close the nearest house is. It did seem like they were kind of isolated. So if they were isolated and surrounded fit this theory, right? If they want to believe this is what happened, just like in any other case. Unfortunately, and we're not going to put them here, but there are photos of Kathleen Peterson on those stairs.

And I have looked at them. And to me, I can't really poke holes in the owl theory per se, but I would caution anyone who fully believes this because it still doesn't explain the cast off in my opinion on the stairs. And I've said it numerous times, not a blood spatter expert, but to me, that cast off appears to be from some rapid movement that was taking place on the stairs because the cuts are on her head, the back of her head. She had long hair, the hair is covering it. So you would see in like a movie situation where if someone gets cut a certain way, they can bleed a lot and there can be spray. I've seen it personally. It's not pretty, but when you have that much hair covering it, usually it

will deflect the blood before it's spraying out all over the place. It'll kind of get absorbed like a sponge by your hair. So for me, just my opinion, the cast off would be caused by her whipping her hair back and forth or someone whipping her head back and forth for her. And the blood that's on the hair is now casting off onto the wall as her hair is whipping back and forth. I don't see why she would be making that motion if she was sitting on the stairs bleeding out where she'd be whipping her hair back and forth. And that's why I'm apprehensive about completely buying into this owl theory. It does fit. I got to say, I mean,

you laid it out perfectly right there, but I'm still apprehensive about it. I don't really have anything concrete to say, nope, not possible. This is too far fetched. But that's the one thing as I'm sitting here right now, looking at photos on my computer while talking to you guys, that blood spatter cast off that it looks like high velocity blood spatter cast off to me, the small droplets, that's some type of motion to me. And I don't know why she would be doing that on the stairs if she was bleeding to death. I think that the wounds on her head, the owl attack is the best theory to explain those because we don't think they were made by a blow poke.

A blow poke would have broken if you're hitting a skull. It's thin, it's hollow. It's not like a super strong instrument. It could be stairs, but I feel like if you're hitting somebody's head into the stairs, you're going to see some deeper fractures. You're going to see some underlying hemorrhage, something like that. Agreed. So the talons do seem to be like the most likely kind of explanation. And in 2010, three affidavits were actually submitted by three expert witnesses who backed up this owl theory. Dr. Patrick Reddick, who is a professor of veterinary medicine at the University of Minnesota, he said the owl theory was entirely within the behavior and repertoire of large owls. Dr. Alan Van Norman, a neurosurgeon and owl expert, said that the wounds on Kathleen's head looked more like they came from a pair of three-taloned owl feet rather than a blunt instrument, saying, quote, the multiple wounds

presented suggested to me that an owl and Ms. Peterson somehow became entangled. Perhaps the owl got tangled in her hair, or perhaps she grabbed the owl's foot, end quote. And Kate Davis said the lacerations, quote, look very much like those made by a raptor's talons, especially if she had forcibly torn the bird from the back of her head, end quote. Yeah, I'm going to tell you right now, if we found out later that it was an owl, I would not be shocked based on what you're laying out. It's really compelling evidence. And in a case like this where we don't know with 100% certainty what happened, it's not even really obvious to us based on what we've gone over, I would say this case has me scratching my head. Yeah, right? I still don't know.

I have an opinion and I'm definitely going to give my opinion and I will say, this is why we wait, I will say I felt better about it before the owl theory. I won't even lie to you. Better about it before the owl theory and before literally seeing the prosecution and all of their witnesses bending over backwards to make sure that no evidence was shown to the jury that exonerated him. Maybe I'll get myself in trouble for this. That doesn't bother me as much. It bothers me from a systematic perspective where I know that this shouldn't happen and that in this case, there was a lot of it. I will tell you that in this case, it seems to be true. I'm not trying to discredit it or minimize it. But I will say that I've had it happen to me numerous times too, where you'll have defense attorneys

try to discredit you if they can't discredit the evidence. And it seems like here, based on everything you said, justly so, there was a lot of things going on where it shouldn't have happened. And some of it appears to have happened after this trial, right? Where some of this information became apparent with Deaver and stuff like that after the trial. So yeah, totally for it. And regardless of when it's learned, it should be exposed and they should go back

and look at previous cases that these individuals worked. But so the fact that there was no blood reportedly on his t-shirt does not bother you. It does bother me. Honestly, it does. It bothers me because if you're to believe that he assaulted her and again the hair whipping theory well her hair is going to whip back and forth and he would be in front of or behind her and it would whip in his direction so there would have to be some cleaning could he have changed his shirt yeah i guess he could have but as we said earlier there were witnesses that saw him in a similar shirt. So I don't know.

It's where the shirt go. Where did the shirt go? Now he had three hours. So a lot can happen in or two hours, whatever the timeframe window is. A lot can happen. There could be some major cleanup and things can go missing. Could have buried it somewhere for all we know. But yeah, the owl theory, I will say this is a first for crime weekly where I kind of feel like by the last episode I got everything where I need to be. And then I've known about the owl theory. I kind of assumed that I would take it seriously but not really believe it was possible. And I'm sitting here actually thinking like, yeah, that does make sense.

I think that's how everyone feels about the owl theory. Well, how do you feel about it? You didn't weigh in. Do you think that- So the same thing as you. I was like, the freaking owl theory. But I did hear, remember it was CrimeCon a couple of years ago. They had a whole panel and a whole segment about the owl theory.

And I watched it and I was like, whoa, this is legit. And before that, I was like, owl theory. What are you talking about? This sounds like some random, sounds like a Jose Baez defense, right? Something he just came up with, pulled out of his ass, throw it against the wall, see if it works. But when you look deeper into it, like, yeah, given the time of year, given the species, given that they're territorial, given that it's their mating time, so they're going to be even more territorial, given the wounds on her head that really can't be explained by anything else, given the feather in her hand and her hair in her hand, why did that happen? Things like that, like the front door

being open and the blood being found outside the house and then inside the house, unless she was chased by somebody into the house and hit before she even got inside. And maybe you could explain it that way and say, well, she was being pursued by Michael Peterson and she was outside and then ran in through the front door. But if you're being pursued by your husband who's trying to kill you, why are you running back in the house? Why won't you run to the street? So that doesn't really make sense. It sounded like she was running into the house because she felt there was safety there and you wouldn't feel that way if you were being pursued by your husband who's trying to kill you. So yeah, it's hard to just scoff at it, I guess. Yeah, it's hard to scoff at it. And this is why those bloody footprints that were marked on a

sketch pad would have been great to have a photo with a scale because you could see the size of the footprint. And is it more in line with Michael Peterson or is it more in line with Kathleen Peterson? If they even existed. Yeah. Well, yeah well if they exist you know i guess one other thing to just try to like poke holes in this because that's what we have to approach it like this if i get attacked by someone or an animal i should say and i'm bleeding profusely and i'm i'm struggling i'm going to try and go back to whoever I know is in the house. And the last place that she had seen Michael, and this would have been moments after leaving him, I'm running towards the back door to try to get out to my husband to help to have him help me.

I'm not trying to run up the stairs for whatever reason. I'm running towards him to say, help me. I'm bleeding. So here's here's their answer for that, because I thought the same thing. I thought the same thing. We think the same because I was like, why am I running upstairs? Like, oh, I got attacked by an owl, time for bed. I'm about to go. I'm going to be like to my husband, like, yo, an owl just attacked me, man. Because it's crazy. But what they said was, listen, A, she's super independent. She's super like, you know, got her own thing going. She don't need no man.

She doesn't go to her husband and say, can you patch me up? B, she didn't know how badly she was injured because these lacerations in your head bleed very profusely, but they don't always have to be like a drastic sort of wound. So she didn't know how bad she was wounded and she may have been going upstairs to her bathroom where the first aid kit was so that she could get like alcohol and stuff to like clean it out. Because when you get attacked by an owl, you have to worry about like diseases that birds are carrying. You know, like I have chickens and I love my chickens and they're clean, but every time I touch them, pick them up or anything, I wash my hands every time because animals have diseases. So she may have said, oh shit, I got attacked by

this owl or this bird. I've got to get like alcohol on these cuts before like, so that it doesn't get infected. So she was heading upstairs to where the first aid kit was. Yeah, I guess. I guess it's because then the theory is, okay, she's injured from the owl. She's bleeding. She's still coherent. She's still able to move. She's still able to function. She's not in a bad place yet.

It's when she's going up the stairs. She's bleeding. She slips because she's wearing these clear plastic sandals. Maybe there's a little bit of blood getting on there and she slips. And that's when she hits her head or something and she gets even more injured. So now she's laying there. And more disoriented. More disoriented.

Can't really get up. Maybe tries to get up, but can't. And she bleeds out. And I think she fell once, probably bled from her head onto the floor. And then the blood's slippery now and now she's falling again. That's the idea. Yeah. Yeah. You know, that's the idea. Yeah. Yeah.

I mean, that's a strong theory. This is definitely a first for us two years in where it's kind of like, wow, last episode of a series and a curveball is thrown in the ninth inning. It's crazy. So before we get into final thoughts, I sort of want to finish this series out with the recent allegations. I guess they're not recent. I think it was like in 2021. So a couple of years ago. But Todd Peterson made some allegations against his father. And remember,

for a long time, Todd was Michael's most fervent supporter. But here is what Todd said in this live stream that he posted on Instagram in 2021 after the death of his mother, Patty. I'm literally about to have the worst experience of my entire life. I'm about to call the cops on my father for the murder of my mother, Patricia Peterson, which I now today realize that the motivation was money, just like I now believe Kathleen. I didn't really realize it all until I tried to break my sobriety a couple weeks ago. My own father tried to break my sobriety. That's actually how I figured out he was a serial killer. Until then, I was blind and stupid and thought he wouldn't hurt a family member.

And well, if you want to break your own son's sobriety, you can do anything. I was a fall-down drunk. I'm not a good guy. I'm not a good guy. I'm not a good guy. I am now, but if you judge me against my whole lifetime,

I've done some fucking horrible shit. Former alcoholic, drug addict. Three years ago, I was the top-running American. Sixth most dangerous city in the world. Selling real estate. I think. Not sure what I was doing.

By the end of that one, I was a fall-down drunk, man. I was losing my car once a week. I'm sorry, once a month. It wasn't this one. I had a cool Jeep. I was such a drunk, man. I was losing my car once a month. I was passing out on the street,

literally waking up at like 6 in the morning in the sixth most dangerous city in the world. I was an alcoholic for a lot of reasons. I'm going to head over to the house now because I just discovered today the final pieces that made it all sense. I didn't go to my mom's funeral about four months ago.

She was my best friend. I was with her. The day she died, I was with her. The day she died, I was with her when she died. My father waited three hours while my mom was having a heart attack. Didn't call the cops. When I came over within seven minutes,

I called the cops. 9-1-1. My mom would be alive today if it weren't for my father. Anyways, it's all about this, man. About the insurance. when they got divorced my mom ended up with all the stuff my dad wanted it's unbelievable so petty you know my dad wanted the

my dad wanted like this like george v teapot sterling silver teapot you know it's not a lot i mean you know my mom probably has a couple hundred thousand maybe half a million of artwork maybe a million but more importantly the easy to see stuff is this called silverware it's easy because it's silver and it should be there all gone all gone obviously down the street. Another conversation, I'll talk about the bizarre behavior of my father immediately after my mother's death and him taking all this stuff. My mom died in front of me twice, actually. I saved her the first time. Her body failed her, so we had to pull the plug on her,

which is the most inhumane thing in the world. I brought my mom back from death the first time. But we both agreed, my dad and I, she died while I was on the phone with my mom. Anyways, I couldn't go back in the house for a while. So finally I asked my dad to help me get things moving. Because I couldn't set foot in the house. Well, by the second or third day, it was pretty awful.

By the fourth day, I think that's when he tried to break my sobriety. I have it all on notes, but it's a fucking monster. Anyways. He's a sociopath. He goes hot, he goes cold. This is my... This is my... health card.

My mom had an account for us, and she wanted to pay for insurance for me. I haven't had insurance in 20 years. I don't believe that. But we have a joint shared account on this, okay? Me, my mom, and my dad, okay? Money comes out of here

for the insurance that she makes me get. Well, last night, payment failure, okay? So, I'm going to go pull out the money for the year. We're actually going to pull pull out the money for the year we're actually going to pull it all out it's like 500 bucks or so for the insurance for the year but more importantly I'm doing that

to show that my father is erratic because this is what I believe he'll do I believe he's going to text me messages now calling me irresponsible and horrible whatever he's going to blame it on me even though he has literally stolen all of this stuff it is my belief that he's going to go hot

and cold because he doesn't want to call the cops on him see i never thought my dad would kill kathleen or my mom because i didn't think he would hurt his own family member i literally needed my own personal experience where he tried to hurt me and ruin my life and my alcoholism. I needed that personal experience to see nothing would prevent him from doing anything. I mean, if he'd ruined his own child's alcohol sobriety, where I've been clean for three years. If Kathleen was going to leave him, which was a very strange final conversation that she had with me, the last conversation that she had with me, you know, it's not a smoking gun at all,

but it's very strange because it was basically her talking about how she believed that in life you have three relationships, one in your 20s, 25 to 35, one 45 to 55, and then the other one from 60 to the rest of your life. Well, my dad was the second relationship there. He wasn't the third one. Kathleen was like in her late 40s, I think, or early 50s. It was the weirdest damn conversation I have ever seen. And I didn't ever say anything

because obviously I didn't think my dad did it. And it would have been a very harmful conversation to have heard about because if she left him, he would have had to move out of the house of 1810 cedar street because he didn't have the cash flow because his books were getting rejected left and right and while he did have good news about a movie that stuff is pie in the sky and it's statistically unlikely whereas the fact that his financial stress was very real she had left him he would have been devastated.

It is true they had the world's greatest relationship. They never fought. They literally had the world's greatest relationship. You can talk to any girl I've ever dated. Bad boyfriend. I'm blaming my father for that one, called bad parenting, and made me a bad person, but I'm a good person now. I was a very bad boyfriend for many years,

and admittedly, I haven't been in a relationship since I got sober. And I think it's best just to be very devout and not burden other women with me, frankly speaking. So I'm assuming I'm a good person now, but I can't say it for fact. Unbelievably, my dad and Kathleen actually had the world's greatest relationship. I do not know how that's possible. I think he's gay, for the record. I know he's gay, for the record. I know he's bisexual, but I've never

seen that man have a heterosexual experience that was authentic in my life. Other than they did have a great relationship with Kathleen, but that dude, he goes off when he sees men. I've never seen him go off when he sees a woman. Anyways, I can't believe I'm going to call the cops on my fucking father, man.

I was widely regarded as the toughest white guy in the most dangerous city in the world. This is cartel land about three years ago. I want to just say to the people down there that would maybe frown upon this. I'm not ratting my dad out. This guy's a fucking serial killer, man. And he's a monster. I told my mom that he was going to kill her. I actually told her that.

And I made my peace with that because she didn't want to hear it. So personally, I don't think there's much to this. Todd, admittedly, as he said, you know, in this video has been struggling with his own demons, his own addictions. He doesn't seem to be super stable. And I looked into this and it Peterson would just let his ex-wife die in front of him so that he could get her silverware, especially after what happened with Elizabeth Ratliff. And Kathleen, is he really going to want to be in the same house as another woman, another woman that he's married to, dying and have to deal with that for some silverware?

There's not even life insurance money at stake here. And at the time of her death, Patty and Michael were still quite close. She'd stood by him throughout everything. I even believe that they were living together at this time as roommates. After he got out of prison, they got a two-bedroom condo together in Durham, I think, and they lived together. Clayton, their son, said that his parents were companions and they took care of each other at this time. So I guess Michael did call his sons and say Patty wasn't feeling well. And apparently Todd got upset and he was like, did you call 911? And Michael was like, no. And I guess Todd and maybe even Clayton felt that Michael should have called the police before he called then. But he probably didn't know what was going on with Patty. And I'm sure, honestly, if I'm being fair to Michael Peterson, I don't even

want to call 911 at this point. I don't want to even bring this to my doorstep again. If I don't have to call 911 and maybe she's just not feeling well. And I will say, I think she had a heart attack. Heart attacks look very different in men than they do in women, by the way. Like the symptoms of a heart attack in a woman look incredibly different than they would for a man. So maybe he just didn't think it was a heart attack and he thought she was just not feeling well. I don't think there's anything nefarious here. I certainly don't think that he just let her die and refused to call the police.

And I think that Todd has had problems for a long time. And I mean, even the people who are against Michael Peterson, Aphrodite Jones and Diane Fanning, who wrote books about Michael Peterson, and clearly, you know, this all, these books were written before the Dwayne Deaver stuff came out. So they were very anti-Michael Peterson. Even they say like, Todd's action-packed with issues, man. Okay, like no offense to Todd. He's action-packed with issues. He always has been. It seemed like both Clayton and Todd, you know, had their growing pains. Clayton grew out of it and kind of settled and Todd really never did. So what's going on now, who knows? But there could be a lot of motives for Todd doing this regardless. Apparently, you know, there was an investigation done and nobody thinks that there's any foul play.

Although I don't really trust like Durham law enforcement or hit this point. So I don't know. I don't know. I don't think there's anything to it. What do you think? There could be some truth in what he's saying. You know, I, it is hard because you have to judge the credibility of the source. And as he said numerous times in the video, he's not a good person. He thinks he's a good person now,

but he's not sure. So you have to take that into consideration when he doesn't even know what type of person he is. And there may be some truth to what he's saying. A lot of it's speculative on his part as far as motive. He did say some things at the end of the video where he said he helped facilitate potential hits on people outside the prison while Michael was in prison. I would love to know more about that because that's something that you probably could verify as an investigator. But as far as motive, he's putting pieces together based on things he's experiencing. It doesn't mean it's true. He goes on to state that he believes his father was, was a homosexual just because he'd never really,

I guess, like showed that he was into women outside of, but he always would show, I guess if an attractive man came by, he had more, he was more into kind of showing that he had interest or whatever. I didn't really know where he was going with that. But overall, none of that says definitively that he killed Kathleen Peterson.

It's just more of just his opinion, which doesn't hold a ton of weight because he's coming out with that information at a time where he's angry at his father. So there's definitely an agenda there. Is it because now he's telling the truth because he's mad? Or now he's embellishing certain stories that he has with his father because he's angry with him and is trying to get back at him? I think that his mother just died. He was mourning. He was upset. It was traumatic when somebody's already sort of like not,

like you said, he doesn't even know who he is. He's a grown man and he doesn't know where he stands and what's going on. And so when you're not super steady in yourself and something like this happens, it can be staggering. It can take you back many steps. And I think he was lashing out and angry and hurt, basically hurt, which comes out as anger in people that don't know how to illustrate that they're hurt. And I think he just was lashing out. I mean, he hasn't really said anything since. As far as him saying that he thought his father was just gay and didn't like women, I think that's false. Even the prosecution brought out or found multiple women that Michael

Peterson had had sexual relations with in the past who they talked to because they were trying to figure out, you know, had he given any indication of being gay back then when he was younger, but, you know, he dated women, he dated men. Yeah, it feels like he's just saying stuff, like he's just venting and having this like therapy session in front of the world. And, you know, I think it's sad and I feel bad for him. And his mother died. That's upsetting. And it was unexpected. So it's a heart attack. It's not even like she was sick and you knew this was coming. She just suddenly died. And sometimes when things happen that we can't explain and we don't understand why, we need to point the finger

and blame someone. And we have to find a way to explain it. And I think that was his way. Yeah. Very possible. Do you want to get into final thoughts? Yeah, let's get into final thoughts, man. You go first because I'm sure you have more final thoughts than me. Yeah, well, it's kind of a little messed up now, but we're going to go with it anyway. So to kind of go back and talk about some things that we talked about earlier in this series, we talked about motive and premeditation, all these things things right off the the jump i don't think this was a premeditated murder i don't even if it was only a matter of uh minutes before if anything this was a crime of passion but but we we talked a lot about michael and kathleen's relationship and there really wasn't anything

over the top that would suggest a reason for motive to want to kill them to kill Kathleen. And I will say this, like thinking about it more because, you know, even in your off time, think about this, this family dynamic and something there. And it was something you said to me very early on when you're kind of giving us the foundation of this case and giving us some backstories. And you talked about and by the way, if I'm wrong on any of this, correct me. But I believe you said to us that Kathleen had divorced her previous husband for infidelity, correct? Yes, okay friday. Yeah, so clearly it's something that she's not okay with that's not speculative It's happened and from what you've said Although the the emails weren't with with brent weren't too over the top michael himself had has indicated that he has slept with other people while married to Kathleen.

Is that fair to say? It sounded like that to me. Yeah, that's what it sounded like to me. So if Kathleen was aware of this, I don't think she would be okay with it. And then you couple that with the financial issues that they were having, which in and of themselves, I don't think it would be enough to kill someone. But the fact that they had over $100,000 in debt, her step sons from another marriage were struggling financially. And I'm sure he was still talking to her about it, even though he said he wasn't. There was a lot going on there. Then you couple that with the fact that she may have gone in the desk and she's seeing these photos and emails.

She probably has a pretty good indication that Michael's sleeping around on her. And could that, could that cause an argument after a couple of drinks? Absolutely. I know Todd said in his, even the video, all they were the perfect couple. They never fought. Well, sometimes people compartmentalize things and before they blow up and this might've been the night that they blew up. So before the owl theory, I was going to say that I'm, I-40 in the direction that he did intentionally kill her, that this was a homicide. It was a crime of passion. And there was a couple things that got me there. The main thing was the blood spatter.

I've said it multiple episodes. blood spatter from any other way other than an assault, it would be very difficult to me because I would expect that if she was sitting there bleeding, she would be struggling to get up. There would be more hand smudges on the wall, things to show like she was kind of, I hate to say this, but like slipping around in her own blood. There were a lot of hand smudges. I saw them. I did. And that's why I'm saying more. That's why I'm saying more. I would expect more, but a couple quick things I'll hit on them.'ve already you guys know about these for the most of you taking notes but i just said the blood spatter i think the cleaning of the blood although if you look at the photo of the crime scene the paper towels are there it's not like he was doing a

massive cleanup where he was going to each stair cleaning up but still to me still find it odd that you, as you're sitting there with your wife, the love of your life, you would even consider going to get paper towels unless it was for anything other than to maybe like dry off the blood on her head. But it doesn't seem like that's what he's saying to law enforcement. He's saying, I did a little bit of cleaning up of the area, which if we're wrong in that interpretation, that's on us. But that sound, is that sound right? Am I wrong in how I'm saying that?

No, it sounded like he kind of just, yeah, like got some paper towels, got some towels to put under her head and then sort of like took a paper towel roll and was kind of, I don't even think he took paper towels off the roll. It looked like he just took the whole roll and sort of like. Yeah, the rolls there, you can see it. He might've, there might've been some paper towels thrown away. I don't know that that bothered me. And none of this in and of itself is like, Oh, smoking gun. He's guilty. Then you have the calls to 911. He makes the first call. Okay. And within what was it? Seven minutes, something like that. He

makes a second call saying she's dead. I have never had a situation in 13 years on the job as a patrolman, as a sergeant. I've had multiple calls where I show up and the person's deceased by the time I get there. They've probably been dead for 10, 20 minutes, but I've never had a relative in that moment say, oh, we just wanted to call back. They're already dead. And the reason for that is normally they're not doctors, so they don't know if they're dead or not. Yes, they might not feel a pulse or breathing or whatever, so they don't know if they're dead or not. Yes, they might not feel a pulse or breathing or whatever, but they don't know if they're

still there. And secondly, there's a sense of urgency. They want you, their protectors, the people that are supposed to help them to get there as fast as possible to maybe bring them back or do what you need to do. So I don't see the relevance to call and say, oh, she's dead now. She's dead. I don't get that. That was a little odd to me.

It almost sounded a little set up, like maybe after the first call, she might've already been dead, but it couldn't make it look that way. So he has to call in again so that when first responders arrive, the fact that she's already deceased and some of the blood is dried up a little bit, it maybe makes more sense because when did she die? The second they showed up, I thought that was a little odd injury to the neck, even though the owl theory has some, has some legs to it. No pun intended there. I feel like the injury to the neck, although it could be a red herring, it could be nothing with the case. It could just be, as we talked about something that was fractured

during the autopsy by the pathologist. It wouldn't be professional of us not to acknowledge it that there are some people that believe it could be a sign of suffocation. It could have been a situation where they're fighting. He begins to strangle her and she fights back or whatever, and he's banging her head off the staircase. And ultimately this is the result of it. But yeah, I do think it would be a crime of passion. I don't think it would be this premeditated murder. I think in the act of assaulting her, maybe just to hurt her, it escalated to a homicide. But that would be the most for me. So what?

So you don't think any murder weapon was absolutely not. You hit her head against the stairs. Yep. I think it was. And that's more what you would see with a crime of passion where it is in the moment. No blood on his shirt. No blood on his shirt. No blood on his shirt. Yeah.

That bothers me. I'm not gonna lie to you. It could be directional where the blood is spouting in one direction as he's hitting her and he's lucky enough where it doesn't get on him. I said to this to you, I don't know. We've taken some breaks tonight, but I would expect to see blood, a lot of blood on his chest. Honestly.

Yeah. We were talking about the hair back and forth. That was in the episode. So we also, we talked off the episode about how much blood was on Kathleen on the bottom of Kathleen's feet. And like, it kind of takes us both back where it's like, clearly to me at one point she,

she stood up in her own blood. Yup. I agree. I agree. When did that happen? There is a part of me that thinks maybe during the struggle, she's bleeding and she's trying to use, she's trying to stand up. She's trying to sit up.

She's trying to push herself away and she's slipping in her own blood as she's, as she's struggling because he's suffocating her. He's hitting her where she tries to get her feet tucked underneath her and she's kicking and she just can't get her grip because of how much blood again, totally speculative, but it's one of those things where you have to acknowledge. Is that possible? Yeah, it is. It's possible.

That could be the case where she's sitting on the stairs fighting for her life. And as she's got her feet underneath her, she's bleeding all over the place and she's slipping in her own blood. And that could explain the blood on her feet, because I will say I do not recommend going and look at the photos, but the blood I would expect if there was, if she was walking around her, your feet would compress. And the majority of the foot would be covered in blood, pretty flat. If you look at the photos, it seems more like it's almost like the edge of her foot kicking and not necessarily, I don't know. It's again, it's like the whole bottom to me,

like she was stepping around around walking through it though. Yes. And even the defense, I mean, even the prosecution says that's what it looks like. The entire bottom of her feet. It's so odd. And it's still, it still could happen from her trying to stand up in her pool, a pool of blood. But all that said, that was before the owl theory.

And I didn't hear anything in the owl theory that was ridiculous to me. And frankly, there's still a very strong possibility that this was an accident and that she did just fall down the stairs. That's just the truth. But if you put a gun to my head and said, hey, where are you leaning? That's where I would have been leaning. But I will say if I was 60, 40 before the owl theory, now I'm kind of 50,50 where I think it's either a crime of passion or this is such a rare freak accident involving an animal that it's so hard to believe. People can't rationalize that she may have been attacked by an owl, ran into the house, slipped and fell in her own blood, or even just slipped going up those slippery wooden stairs, increased the injuries

that she sustained, got a concussion, and then bled out from the injuries sustained by the owl. Obviously a one in a million chance that that would happen, but it's possible. And I think when you can't, as a prosecutor, as a detective, you can't get there, you automatically go to husband had to do it. So I would say, yeah, I'm 50-50 with that whole thing. I do not think, I think it's less likely that this was just a pure accident, but I'm sure a lot of people would agree with me there. I think the owl theory is way more believable than just her coming down the stairs or going up the stairs for the night and slipping. It doesn't explain a lot of the things we're seeing. I think, I don't know, man, but I think an accident, an accidental fall is based on like

the blood and what it looks like in the staircase. I think it's possible. And I was telling you once again, I think we were off camera and we weren't being recording, but I was just filming a movie at a very old house built in the 1800s. And I had one of these back servant staircases and and it's very narrow, and they're very dark, and I mean like narrow, and then they turn at a very extreme angle. And the stairs kind of like – the edge of the stairs kind of like round off, so you could literally just slip if you get – you're a wrong footing. And she was wearing these like weird clear sandals, these plastic clear sandals. She was drinking. She could have been walking up the stairs, slipped at the top

and fallen down to the point where maybe she fell backwards. So that's why you don't see blood on a lot of the steps and hit like flew backwards, like kind of flew backwards, hit her head on the wall or the stairs and started bleeding. And then she's like, oh no. And she gets up and starts trying to like walk away, but she's losing blood so fast that she then slumps down. Like, I think that's possible. If you had to ask me right now, like, would I vote this guy guilty if I was on a jury? No. Oh, I mean, we haven't even got there yet. The one thing I want to say doesn't mean I'm right. If this was an accident, and I know this isn't the way the prosecution laid it out, or I should say the defense laid it out.

But I wholeheartedly believe that if this was an accident, I don't know why she was up there. But I think it's more likely that she was coming down the stairs. And I think that because I've done this before in my life where that rounded edge that you're talking about, your heel catches it and it slips out and you crack your skull off the stair where if she's walking up the stairs, if anything, and I've done this too. I think we all have. You're running up the stairs or something to get something. Cause the kids are fighting or whatever. And you've, and you, and you miss the stair, right? Like your foot slips out and you fall flat on your face or on your forearms. It's so hard to fall backwards where it's like, well, it's like a movie, right? Where that's how you would fall. I think it's much more likely she's walking around.

She goes upstairs. She forgets something downstairs. She's got those slippery sandals on. She's on the stair and she might've hit like four or five stairs on the way down as she's, as she's going down them, which would potentially explain this. So I'm not going to sit here and say that you think it's an accident. You're wrong. And I, and what you just said there was where I was going to say next, which is regardless of what camp you're in owl,, crime of passion or an accident.

I don't think there's there's so much reasonable doubt here. I don't see how a jury came to the conclusion that he was guilty. And I also don't see why, Michael. I know it's a I know it's a risk, but I would have never taken an Alford plea with all of this reasonable doubt in there. I would have never I would have I would have went for it but I would have never taken an Alford plea with all of this reasonable doubt in there. I would have never. I would have. I would have went for it because I would have taken it.

I would have taken it. I wouldn't have. Freaking second because no, because the jerk because they wouldn't have offered it if they thought they had me. Yeah. Have you been to prison, though? Like, no, I mean, I haven't been to prison. No, I haven't been to prison. But I would have because you have to know that if you take the Alford plea, your life's

over anyways. Your life is over. And even to some degree, it already is because in the court of public opinion, they're going to think what they want. But by taking that Alford plea, I know there are a lot of people are going to say, oh, he took it because it was a lesser sentence. So he got away with it. And, you know, he does a short period of time and he's out. But yeah, I mean, this is a first for us.

I think he took it because he was desperate. Desperation will do a lot to you. Like I don't want to spend another freaking day behind bars, you know, like desperation. It's like, it's not even fair, honestly, to offer somebody something like that, knowing they'll do anything to get out of prison. It's like offering a hungry man food and saying like, if I give you this food, you're indebted to me for some reason, but you're starving. So you're going to take it. And that's exactly what happened. Like, it's really not fair. I couldn't have found him guilty if I was on a jury. Absolutely not. Absolutely not. Look at this. We've had this before, but we completely agree

on this case. And yet we have no clue what happened after five parts. It's like, you know, anything's possible but i feel like that's our responsibility we're not just here to tell you something because oh we have to make a decision i feel like this case was was polarizing because of these exact circumstances and a lot of people feel this way and i had people dming us on the crime weekly instagram oh he's not guilty i had some people saying he was i had some people in the true crime space be like i don't think he i don't think there's enough there and it wasn't until we went through it where now i see it now i get it and i can see why people are really troubled by this one and and depending on who you

talk to everyone has an opinion but damn i never thought i would leave this going that owl theory yeah yeah i can see it i mean what other theory that we talked about explains the explains the twig explains the door being open explains the micro feathers tell which one which one none of them the only one is the owl theory kind of crazy right and that's evidence that's not manipulated right that's what i'm talking about when you're following the evidence as as extreme and crazy as it sounds yeah there's a feather in her you know she has her own hair in her hands she's got the micro feather that's it was that in her hands as well. Yes. Right. In the hair, in her hands.

And she's got the twig in her, in her actual hair, blood on the front door, door, front door, a jar. When I'm assuming, did Michael confirm that she came in through the front door, that she didn't go in through the back door after they, she left the pool? He was sleeping. So he wouldn't have known, right? No, he wasn't sleeping. Well, he doesn't say he was sleeping, but she went in through the back door after she left the pool? He was sleeping. So he wouldn't have known, right? No, he wasn't sleeping. Well, he doesn't say he was sleeping, but she went in through the back door, right? Or he doesn't say whether she did. Because remember, like I said, the pool's down there and then you walk up, you wouldn't

see if she went into what door. You would just see her disappear and it's kind of lower. So she could have gone in through any door and he wouldn't have known which door she used to go through. But why was the front door open? Yeah. Why was the front door open? Yeah, I agree. And I know there's been a lot of comments.

There were people who were talking about the behavior panel as far as their assessment. And they went majorly on not only the evidence but also the body language of Michael Peterson. Listen, they're looking at it from a different angle. I think I haven't watched it. What did they say? From the comments there, they don't even necessarily believe that they were at the pool that Michael said they were at. And he was much closer to the house.

But I know from the series, they definitely think he's guilty. They think that he was more storytelling than regurgitating facts. And I mean, listen, it's possible. Yeah. It's possible. But we live in a country where you're going to have to show me some like evidence of that before I send a person to prison

for the rest of their lives when there's a chance they could be innocent. You've said it before. I'd rather, you know, let a hundred guilty men get away than send one innocent person to prison. And, you know, I've always kind of been like, well, I don't want to say 100 guilty men, maybe like five.

Yeah, too much on the conscience. But we both agree, proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Was that present in this case? I don't think it takes a lawyer to say no. No, it wasn't. And the prosecution didn't do a great job. And we've had people like Brett from the prosecutor say right out, like they were going with this angle. Then that angle was gone and yet they still went with it.

It was a very confusing strategy that they implemented. And so I think we leave this series kind of with a question mark where there's anything is possible. I don't think Michael is a likable guy. But there is a world where he's a piece of shit, but he still didn't kill his wife. And that may be what we're looking at here. But man, it's a perplexing case. And I think that's why a lot of people are passionate about it. And I'm glad we covered it because this is the first where I usually lean one way or the other. And here I am kind of feeling the same way as I did when I came into it. Which is what? You don't know? I don't know. I don't know either. I don't know.

Because we're also, we have to keep in mind, we're going off the facts that were collected by investigators and experts that we can't really trust, which we've established. And also, we're going off the testimony of Michael Peterson as far as what happened that night, how long they were outside. Michael Peterson's the one that told us she came in the house separately from him right do we have anything to confirm that no we don't so for all we know they came in the house together so we're going off we're trying they weren't even out there to begin with they were they might have never stepped foot outside there's no evidence that they were in the backyard right there's

really there's only evidence of the front yard. So I've said it before, but you're building a house on a shitty foundation. The evidence we have to analyze, a lot of it has been tainted. Supposition. Yeah, it's been tainted by the people who are interpreting it. There's questions about the autopsy. And then the only person present during this

was Michael Peterson, who is in question as far as possibly killing her. So he would have an incentive to kind of manipulate the story and tell us things different. There was one other thing I didn't mention. It's all coming back to me. But I also think that the deleting of certain documents on his computer, that's not good either. But it could also be that he felt like they were going to pin it on him. So he was just trying to get rid of it because he didn't want it to make him look bad. So that's another way you can go either way with it. Yeah, I definitely feel like if I was in that position, there'd be shit on my phones and computers I'd want to erase before the police

got them. Yeah, you're like smashing them on the ground immediately. Yeah, like Alec Baldwin. Yeah. Or Tom Brady. For you guys who know Tom Brady, they wanted his phone in the inflated football trial and that phone got smashed too. Any final words before we wrap this one up? No, I don't have anything to say. I can't wait to hear everybody's comments though and see where you all land at the end of this. Crime Weekly first, where we're kind of like, hands up.

Who knows? Who knows? I want to hear your comments. I want to hear what you think after hearing the owl theory. Do you think it was an accident? Do you think this was a homicide? Or do you think this was an owl attack that ultimately led to her death through a series of unfortunate circumstances? If you don't weigh down below, we won't know what you think.

So make sure you do that. As always, you can follow us on social media. It's Crime Weekly Pod on Instagram and Twitter. And that's really it. We appreciate you joining us here for another It's Crime Weekly Pod on Instagram and Twitter. And that's really it. We appreciate you joining us here for another episode of Crime Weekly. We will be back next week with a new case. Everyone stay safe out there. Bye. This podcast is sponsored by IQ Bar. I've got good news and bad news. Here's the bad news.

Most protein bars are packed with sugar and unpronounceable ingredients. The good news? There's a better option. I'm Will, and I created IQ Bar Plant Protein Bars to empower doers like you with clean, delicious, low-sugar brain and body fuel. IQ Bars are packed with 12 grams of protein, brain nutrients like magnesium and lion's mane, and zero weird stuff. And right now, you can get 20% off all IQ Bar products, plus free shipping. Try our delicious IQ Bar sampler pack with 7 plant protein bars, 4 hydration mixes, and 4 enhanced coffee sticks. Clean ingredients, amazing taste, and you'll love how you feel.

Refuel smarter, hydrate harder, caffeinate larger with IQ Bar. Go to eatiqbar.com and enter code BAR20 to get 20% off all IQ Bar products, plus free shipping. Again, go to eatiqbar.com and enter code BAR20.