Spoiler Alert! Spoilers for “The Staircase” ahead.
The “Owl Theory”
Thoughts on the Owl Theory
For me, the importance of The Staircase is not whether an owl was involved in some way in Kathleen Peterson’s death. I believe the importance of the documentary lies in exposing the flaws of the criminal justice system in general and junk science in particular.
But since that topic has generated such interest, I will provide my thoughts on the “owl theory” here, to respond to the questions and skepticism expressed on social media.
First, I do not “know” whether the owl theory is true. No one will ever “know” that. The best any of us can do is to weigh the evidence and consider how it stacks up against the other theories advanced to explain Kathleen’s scalp injuries.
And that, at the end of the day, is the key question in this case – what caused the injuries to Kathleen Peterson’s scalp?
Those were the injuries that actually caused her death. Exsanguination was the cause of death – not blunt force trauma to her brain, not a fractured skull, not strangulation. Loss of blood. So, what caused those wounds?
We thought in 2003 they were due to the scalp “splitting” when her head hit a flat surface, such as a wall or a floor, as explained by Werner Spitz in Episode 1. Our experts did not believe there were 7 separate impacts to her head, as the prosecution argued, but rather only three impacts – which caused “splits” on her scalp, as shown in the autopsy photos. But in 2003, none of us considered whether any of those scalp wounds might have been inflicted by a bird of prey. It just never crossed my mind. I wish it had.
Here is the circumstantial evidence that supports the theory that Kathleen went out to the front yard, perhaps to place the small reindeers seen in the photos of the scene taken by the police, and that a barred owl inflicted those injuries:
- Barred owls were living in the woods by the Peterson house
- Barred owls are aggressive and can be dangerous, as explained in: https://www.audubon.org/news/was-owl-real-culprit-peterson-murder-mystery.
- Barred owls have attacked people on numerous occasions
- There were drops of blood on the outside walkway leading to the front door of the house, as shown in police photos
- There was a large smear of blood on the outside of the front door frame as shown in police photos
- At least two of the wounds on Kathleen Peterson’s scalp are in the shape of the talons of a barred owl, as shown on autopsy photos
- The tiny wounds on Kathleen’s face are consistent with the tip of an owl’s beak
- A feather was found on Kathleen Peterson’s body
- A twig was found in dried blood on Kathleen Peterson’s body
- There were numerous strands of Kathleen Peterson’s head hair, which the roots indicated had been pulled out (not cut), found in dried blood on her hands
- Kathleen’s head injuries are not consistent with her having been beaten by a blunt object or on a stair, as she had no brain injury or swelling, no subdural hematoma, and no skull fracture.
Of course, none of this absolutely *proves* it was a barred owl that inflicted the initial wounds on Kathleen Peterson. But as circumstantial evidence goes, it seems pretty persuasive and credible.
David – I think you did an amazing job during the Peterson trial based off what I saw in the documentary. It amazes me that the prosecution can be such scumbags and get away with such sloppy work with people’s lives on the line. It’s really amazing to see how one can be judged, convicted, and locked away just like that with so many unanswered questions. I’ve never been in a courtroom, and I’m sure it’s emotionally intense for both defense and prosecution. Thanks for sharing all this information with the world!
Beautifully said Chris McLellon. Prosecution was sloppy and ignorant. I believe they condemned an innocent man, Michael Peterson. I’m sorry he had to plea the Alford Plea, but as least he can live the rest of his life free from behind bars. So, see Mr. Rudolf, even though you were devastated when the guilty verdict came in, you still were able to help set Mr. Peterson free. You’re a very wise and persistent ally. The world needs more like you. So glad I watched ‘The Staircase”. Kind regards.
A few things about the case.
1. Thoracic cartilage was damaged which is consistent with strangulation- why?
2. His bloody footprint was on he back of her leg
3. Whywere her clothes not examined for dna?
4. No CPR administered
5. Why did he take off his shoes?
6. Can’t ignore the patralell case in Germany
Among others
Owl theory:
1. Aside from a single feather – where are the other feathers or evidence an owl attached her viciously? There would be a lot more feathers
2. Has this type of owl ever killed a human
3. Where are the talon marks on hee hands that would be consistent with someone protecting themselves from an owl attack?
This is the best informations of this case
The OWL is Guilty.
The way the circumstantial evidence has been broken down makes this theory the most credible though. I believe no one was truly prepared to hear it in the first trial. With almost all the evidence gone, I believe we will never be able to know what really happened, but at least this theory makes us think that there was much more evidence against a barred owl than against Michael.
The Owl Theory could only be dignified with rigorous tests and analysis. The lacerations seem consistent with an owl attack.. north carolina especially peterson home is in a wooded area. Only when an owl feels threatened will they swoop. I wonder if any other residents/tourists nearby or in the state have suffered an owl attack and had similar head injuries.
I vaguely remember there was another case where this happened.. but I think it was in 2008 i read the article about Larry Pollard. It seems if “things just happen to you in life” as Michael said…. it would be fitting that this theory could be just that.
Also Mr.Rudolf you are an inspiration. Thank you
I encourage everyone to watch a video of this type of owl attacking prey. This would be more than enough to cause a person with more than 4 inches of hair in the back of head significant injuries. The subsequent fall from the winding staircase would accommodate a guided fall resulting in unconscious. Unconscious leads to loss of blood, and does not suggest death by rapture necessarily. The blood outside the front of the house, and the blood prior to bottom of stairs is consistent with such an attack. Blood at bottom from coughing prior to unconscious. Owl attack is likely the reason for the blood at scene of death. More than enough reason for an intelligent jury to see lack of probable cause to convict based on an attack from her husband.
Mr. Jim Walsh:
1. The thoracic region includes the sternum, lungs, and vertebrae surrounding/protecting the heart and lungs. I believe you were attempting to refer to the THYROID cartilage, a.k.a. Laryngeal cartilage, and reports that there was damage to this region in Kathleen Peterson. Correlating this type of trauma to strangulation cases is not equivalent to proving that strangulation is the only method of inflicting this type of trauma. I’ll refer you to this National Institute of Health report, showing 6 documented cases of Laryngeal cartilage damage from falls.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/21793475/
2. This questioning of the footprint seems arbitrary. He was found by first responders to be embracing Kathleen on the floor…it’s very plausible that a bloody footprint was transferred to her leg during this time, and frankly, I don’t see how this could be viewed as inculpatory by any reasonable individual.
3. The clothes weren’t examined because Suzi Barker had them diverted from testing, as originally ordered to be done, and had them transferred directly to Duane Deaver. If you had paid any attention to the case, you’d know this…this was a big deal!
4. Is CPR even recommended in cases, such as this, where severe bleeding leads to exsanguination? According to this report, it is not, but rather, a little-known technique named EPR is preferred in hospital environments. I’m not a medical expert, but it seems to have something to do with inducing hypothermia through cold saline infusion to the aorta. Trying to explain the behavior of someone in shock is futile, and has been proven to be a fruitless exercise. Either way, Mike is not a medical professional, so to call him out on this seems obtuse. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/26497780/
5. Do you have evidence that shows he took his shoes off after finding Kathleen? This seems more like an insinuation than a question. Speculation is not evidence.
6. Why should the case in Germany be admissible? There was no finding of malfeasance in that case, and certainly there is no part of that incident that can be empirically linked to Mike Peterson as a perpetrator of any wrong doing. Is there no onus to, first, prove some sort of wrong doing on Mike’s part in that case, separately, before allowing it to influence this case? Do evidence and empiricism mean anything to you… to anyone, anymore?
Owl
1. Are you an expert that can say this for certain? Do you believe that your layman’s opinion is worthy of challenging experts who have stated the opposite, including Kate Davis? You don’t even have the evidence correct…there were 3 tiny feathers, consistent with the types of feathers highly prevalent on an barred owl’s talons.
2. Let’s be clear about this. The theory presented is that the raptor attack caused massive bleeding trauma from wounds on the scalp, consistent with the pattern that would be inflicted by talons. Also, tiny cuts on Kathleen’s face were consistent with trauma inflicted by the beak of a raptor the size of a barred owl. These methods attributed to an owl attack, I’d say, are more consistent with her wounds than any trauma inflicted by beating…especially with the now ruled-out blow poke, would be. The prevailing theory also includes that Kathleen, in her reacting to the attack, slipped and fell down the stairs. Whether her cause of death was through exsanguination, as the medical examiner found, or by Laryngeal damage (which I’ve shown, previously, can occur as a result of a fall), the theory that a raptor attacked her and that she, subsequently, fell down the stairs holds water and is consistent for either case.
Reductio ad Absurdium is only valid when it builds upon assertions present in the argent it is deconstructing, and not when it misrepresents them as a straw man. Your over simplification in not including the fall down the stairs as part of the theory is the straw man.
3. There were clearly, at least, 9 wounds on Kathleen’s hands and arms. These could be referred to as defensive wounds. You seem to have typed out your entire outline without even looking at the evidence. Here is a link to a picture showing the wounds on question.
https://images.app.goo.gl/RQwXRWj7a3x7uTV79
I feel I have answered or refuted every point in your comment. I would say, however, that it scares the life out of me that I live in a society where people like you are put into a position of responsibility with regards to potentially deciding the fate of a life, and the casual way with which you scrap logic and reason in favor of conjecture leaves me getting that our justice system, as it is currently deployed, is irreparable, so long as citizens, such as yourself, are involved.
Just finished watching The Staircase and you did a fabulous job at managing this case. I know the heartbreak of the initial conviction was devastating for you and your team I applaud you for your perseverance with this case.
David,
I just finished watching the staircase and I must say you and your team did an amazing job, proving that there were so many Discrepancies in the Prosecutions theories, that i was so astonished as I knew you were that a jury convicted someone on the evidence or I should say, lack of evidence.
But was amazes me more is when Dieber was found with his tampering of evidence and not disclising certain things, was there not a mistrial, the same with the earlier find of the blow poke.
Again, if I were a juror i would have said, not guilty, as would have many of my friends who watched Staircase. With no fingerprints or weapon, right there was reasonable doubt.
And as for the Radcliff case and his bi sexuality, I understand that Judge Hudson, even second guessed his decision to let that be summited in the first trial,
I understand why Michael Peterson, went for the plea bargain and why you were at wits end.
So many questions about how you can ever trust the system
Please if you speak to Michael and his family. Please tell them That I hope they can finally find some peace and so many have been affected by their story
Sincerely,
Cissy Hamel
David, you are an amazing lawyer and person.
If this were a barred owl, I strongly suspect there would have been screaming that neighbours or Mike Petersen himself would have heard. Why not run to Mike and not the stairwell?
He was on the other side of the house by the pool. The only way to get to him was through the house.
I wanted to mention that it wasn’t necessarily only due to the fact that she was on the other side of the house. Wasn’t there a fountain in the center of the pool that seemed to make it hard for anyone by the pool to hear?
The documentary showed a sound test, from the house to the pool, with the fountain you could not be heard.
When i first watched the staircase before i heard anything about any of this case, when the autopsy pictures were shown, i paused it and turned to my girlfriend and said “That looks like a bird attack” When i was young an owl had attacked someone near a farm we own who was wearing an old raccoon fur hat. He lived, but barely. The pictures looked identical to Mrs Petersons. No broken bones, no brain injury, just shredded skin on the head. We warn everyone who goes for walks to wear a colored hat, preferably bright orange, or yellow. Then my girlfriend sent me the link to this “owl theory”. It’s a shame because people think this is improbable. Just the opposite. It doesn’t happen a lot but when it does, and if you can get photos, you’ll see it’s identical in outcome and severity.
Thank you,
Brendan
Brendan, here in Vancouver there were joggers in Stanley Park attacked by owls; specifically anyone with a ponytail. It struck me as hilarious at the time but now I think about the force and strength of the talons….ugh.
I was riveted to this series and could not make up my mind thruout the series. I am now 100% convinced that Michael Peterson is innocent. However, I did wonder why the 2 girls lived with Michael after he divorced his 1st wife. I know that has nothing to do with the actual murder but I admired them for being so devoted to Michael. Just thought that was unusual. Also did Kathleens daughter ever come around or speak to Michael since the airing of the show?
I was very impressed with your legal expertise and knowledge, and I’m so thankful that Michael and his family had you on their side. As an elected county officer, I was shaken to the core when I saw the level of corruption on the side of the prosecution / law enforcement. Literally horrified that Mr. Peterson’s liberty was revoked, due to the willful disregard for Justice.
Fascinating documentary. When I first started reading true crime, I found myself almost always siding with the prosecution. When I watched the documentary, “The Thin Blue Line”, however I was forced to concede that justice, unfortunately, is not always the aim of the state. Regrettably, personal ambition, notoriety and vengeance are variables that factor into the equation as well, and I have been forced to conclude that the state engages in corruption and that injustice occurs occurs more often than we think, as you, Mr. Rudolph, suggested in the last episode of The Staircase. Although we will probably never truly know what happened to Kathleen Peterson, in the final analysis, had I been on that jury, I would have seen reasonable doubt, and I would have to have voted, not guilty.
I watched The Staircase on Netflix and have never seen anything about this case before then. At first I believed Micheal to be innocent but the more I watched and listened to everything that was being said and the evidence presented I no longer believe that. One thing that you, David, had said that really struck me was that a defendant is either guilty or not guilty and a not guilty verdict does not mean that they are innocent but that they were not proven guilty. I have always wondered how lawyers like yourself, who defend clients that have been charged with heinous crimes justify it to themselves. I now know. Although I believe you to be an excellent trial lawyer, I really question your ethics. Another thing that really struck me was when the family found the blow poke and at some point Micheal says, Can we fudge it and say we found it in the house. Now I am not saying that I am a perfect human being, but what the heck….he wants to “Fudge” where they found the possible murder weapon? What else is he “fudging”? That was profound to me and I really cannot believe that that was aired. In watching the evidence presented in that film, I felt it was biased because Micheal was paying for the production therefore all of the evidence was not presented in the movie. I had to look it up afterward to find additional info that was not heard until the end, when her sister made her compelling speech. The theory that she fell down the stairs is preposterous in my opinion even though there was misconduct on the prosecution side. The idea that another woman in his personal life fell down the stairs in a very similar fashion and had the same tradgic outcome is extremely disturbing also and cannot be overlooked.
Sure the jury declares the defendant to be “guilty” or “not guilty”. But you have to pair “not guilty” with the general presumption that we are all innocent until *proven* guilty. Combined with that presumption, “not guilty” means “innocent”.
David, I truly believe an owl killed Kathleen. It’s a subject that years ago seemed outlandish to me. After watching The Staircase, I began to believe the owl theory is the most logical. You are the most incredible attorney that I’ve ever had the privilege of seeing in action. Thank you for allowing me the chance to view this case. The family is and was blessed to have you.
Mr. Rudolf:
You are a terrific criminal defense lawyer. Lord knows we need good ones like you to keep investigators and prosecutors honest.
Question: Other than the case of Kathleen Peterson, is there another recorded case of a barred owl killing someone?
Mr. Rudolph,
My husband and I also just finished watching The Staircase on Netflix. There was so much reasonable doubt that it shocked us both that the jurors came to their decision of “guilty”. I just saw the Owl Theory and it certainly makes perfect sense to me. Why wasn’t this theory brought to trial? If she had a feather on her body and a splinter of twig grasped in her hand then it certainly would prove this theory.
I am thoroughly disgusted with our justice system and definitely believe that Michael is innocent of this crime.
David, we think you are an amazing trial lawyer. I hope the jurors can live with themselves. Shame on them.
I loved watching the Staircase. For me, the biggest problem of the judicial system is that the prosecution is not as much concerned as getting to the truth, but rather is concerned at getting a conviction, almost at all costs, almost to the point of sending innocent people to jail. I was actually surprised to see how much Kathleen Peterson’s sisters had access to the DA Office and how much pressure they seemed to be able to brought upon the DA. I assume that for some families, it is absolutely essential to a sense of justice to get someone guilty for the death of a loved one, whoever that guilty person can be. It is that drive to get someone to take the blame rather than finding out the truth (as much as possible) that is skewing the system. That drive probably permeates a lot of juries too. Unconsciously, for a lot of jurors, a not guilty verdict is probably felt as a failure on their part. That pressure means reasonable doubt these days may have become not enough to render a not guilty verdict. Something like close to “absolute” doubt is probably required now, even though they are being told reasonable doubt is enough.
Was there ever any talk of going to trial again to get a not guilty verdict and then sue the Duram police deptarment for damages? Can you go back now with the owl theroy to overturn the civil case?
It isn’t a question of whether proving that an owl caused the injuries to Kathleen. It is a question of offering enough evidence to support the theory in order to create reasonable doubt for the jury. This theory does that.
The original fall theory as presented at trial, in my opinion, also creates reasonable doubt and the jury put a lot of misplaced faith taking the state’s word.
We just finished watching The Staircase and were very impressed by your professionalism, competence and compassion during the trial and beyond. A couple of unanswered questions crossed our minds regarding Michael being at the pool until 2 AM. Why was he at the pool if the average Durham temperature at night in December is around 35 F? Also, did he fall asleep poolside? Thanks!
It was not that cold that night. In the 50’s, as I recall. That evidence was introduced
at the trial.
It was stated in the documentary that it was in the 50s to 60s range and they weren’t in the pool, just sitting by the pool. In December that’s a pretty nice day, maybe not in the south but I know from living in PA that we normally don’t get that luxury of having a day that nice during that time of year. So sitting outside by a pool really isn’t that strange to do in the kind of weather. I myself had wondered in the beginning the same thing but because I was under the impression they were swimming but realized they were just sitting next to it so it made sense.
Agreed, That Temperature In December Is Rare To scone Across In PA
David,
I am speechless and fascinated for how much efforts you have put in the Peterson’s case. Even just watching the documentary was intense. YOU are such a good lawyer. Best of wishes from Japan.
What struck me was the racial makeup of the jury. I wouldn’t have expected that the black Americans on the jury would fall so hard for the prosecution’s case. The prosecution and their witnesses (including Kathleen’s family) did not come off as likable or even rational and it seemed obvious that their sanctimonious prejudiced views of Michael’s sexuality could have been just as vociferously applied to an African American or member of another minority group. I was sure they were going to go against the prosecution. I also thought surely the whole “hardcore porn” thing would backfire, at least with the men on the jury as I think the majority of men of all races like porn. But, alas, that’s with a northern none-Christian bi-loving 2018 viewpoint. But, demographically speaking, I still can’t imagine that black southerners have a high level of trust for white prosecutors.
Were jurors willing to convict just to distance themselves personally from Michael’s proclivities and align themselves with accepted southern (straight white “Christain”) norms knowing that the very same courtroom might unjustly convict them?
David, was it as obvious then as it is now that Michael was being “railroaded”? I thought the theory on and then find of blow poke was obvious evidence that the investigators did shoddy work, were perhaps persuaded by Kathleen’s sister in blaming Michael and did little to figure out what really happened. Do you think if you went harder on the theme that Michael was being railroaded it would have made a difference?
Hard to say. But I was also surprised that the black jurors were so willing to trust the prosecutors and detectives.
I too was struck by the racial makeup of the jury. Along those lines, one part of the documentary that struck a funny chord with me was when the jury actually visited the Peterson’s house to view the stairs. It’s impossible to know, but I wondered at that time if Michael’s socio-economic status was perhaps held against him by some of the jury, especially when I saw some of their facial expressions when they were on the property itself.
And finally, David I have nothing but the most intense respect for your candor and professionalism throughout this entire case. No one could have done it better.
That was my initial reaction, but then I recalled the deep, deep mistrust of homosexuality in the African-American Christian community–ask anyone who is queer and black and was raised Christian–and I thought, uh-oh. This is *not* looking good.
The DA’s office knew actually how to talk to the conservative Southern law and justice mentality (which goes for Black and White) , and your team did not. The female DA was especially effective in the documentary clips by this standard. As was touched on briefly, failing to present an emotional narrative hurt Peterson. And being obvious outsiders – in attitude if not geography – hurt as well. Having a local good ole’ boy or girl lawyer, and that perspective, would have really helped. Evidence, rationality, and certainly reasonable doubt, are lesser factors in this type of situation and environment.
If Peterson loved his wife so much why no attempt to give her mouth to mouth resuscitation …any loving husband would be covered in blood as they tried to comfort her….also surely a lie detector should have been offered to this innocent man ?
No way his attorney would’ve allowed him to take a lie detector test. They are not reliable and I believe they aren’t even admissible in the majority of courts anymore. Why would he trade one junk science for another? And who said he didn’t try mouth-to-mouth resuscitation? You wouldn’t do that anyway on someone who was still breathing (which she was when he first made the call to 911).
Mr. Rudolf, I read that after Mike’s plea, the feather fragments found on Kathleen’s body were to be sent for examination by a Ms. Dove, but the funding fell thru?
Surely with all the hype around this theory, the examination could be crowd funded? We’re all dying to know more after all.
Don’t know much about that. But feel free to start something up.
Myself and my husband have been gripped with this case in the UK. I would love to see the owl theory investigated. IF I set up a crowd funding page to get this investigated, and IF it could be proven could the case be reopened?
YES! David, please start a Crowdfunding effort. You will get enough money quickly if it’s publicized. Also, there should be a Crowdfunding site for Mr. Peterson! I will support BOTH!
Yes! I would help with this… I truly believe it is the answer. I kept looking at the photos of her head injuries and it struck me that they were curvilinear because of her skull being round… and they looked so familiar. But I did not connect them to possible raptor injuries until I read about it online. To me, it’s really sad that this theory was not included in The Staircase at the end. I understand the producer’s desire to include only parts of the judicial trials… but an exception should be made for this theory. There is evidence supporting it and the patterns themselves are just too compelling. I hope he considers and addendum. Also, great work David… i started off thinking he was guilty, but by the end I was convinced otherwise.
A Ms Dove, examining feathers? Is that for real?
David, civil litigator here but from outside the US. What methods are available for challenging the admissibility of the Deaver blood spatter report and his testimony on the basis that he was either unqualified as an expert or that the report was junk science?
Also, was there a reason that the blood on Kathleen’s clothing was not tested for DNA evidence? Michael’s DNA likely would have been present regardless but if other DNA was found, that would have been another avenue for reasonable doubt possibly.
My name is Hannes and I am from Germany. I am 31 and work for an energy company ruled by old conservative white men. My job is to enable innovations in this company. There is a weekly meeting where I have to argue why it is necessary that we have to change some things to be prepared for the future. I have been so frustrated because I could not believe how some people just don’t se the most obvious problems, contradictions and pitfalls. As a reaction I tried to improve the quality of my arguments and the content I presented. Unfortunately nothing really changed. Then I watched The Staircase and realized how incredible important it is how you speak and how you use your voice. I was so impressed how clear and rhetoricaly clever you presented your arguments. So I adjusted my way of presenting and it really worked. People suddenly took me serious and I could accomplish some major breakthroughs. Learning form a great lawyer how to present arguments was so helpful for me. Thank you.
I’m coming to this thread late. Watching the documentary, I couldn’t take my eyes off the judge’s face. Something really wrong with his demeanor, and his decisions were baffling. Something going on there. Nice lawyering, David.
Even though we are only able to view a small glimpse of the effort required to try this case, I greatly appreciate having the chance to watch to watch you and your team at work.
The owl theory is interesting but from what I have seen the fall theory is entirely credible. Based on the limited facts as know to me, the prosecution only succeeded at character assassination.
I would like to note that your commentary on the verdicts of “guilty” and “not guilty” was powerful. Personally, I believe that the concept of “beyond a reasonable doubt” is lost on most jurors. By asking a jury to find not guilty instead of “not proven,” we are subliminally asking to find innocence, in contravention of the presumption of innocence.
Two brief questions. 1. Do you know if any serious initiatives to amend this language? 2. Final Alford plea aside, would a bench trial have been optional for the second trial?
Thanks again for exhibiting your talents!
Mr. Rudolf,
What a captivating trial, documentary, and owl theory.
I am left wondering about the two brief mentions of a bloody footprint found on the back of Kathleen’s pants, and evidence that she may have been strangled. What’s the story there?
Mr Rudolf
Like most viewers I went from guilty to not guilty and back again so many times. I am from Scotland and as you mentioned, this would almost certainly be Guilty Not Proven verdict if tried here. Whether the owl theory had been introduced or not I was gobsmacked that the jury could come up with their guilty verdict with no conclusive evidence from the prosecution. I don’t see that you could have done anything else to persuade them.
This is a reply to Julie Cameron but may be of interest to David Rudolf.
I used to be a criminal lawyer back in the day here in Scotland and can safely say the ‘not proven’ verdict is misunderstood across the board.
So, this verdict has exactly the same effect as a verdict of ‘not’ guilty’. It is an acquittal in just the same way and so the accused cannot be retried (although the law on this has changed relatively recently so that the prosecution can re=prosecute in certain circumstances if substantial evidence e.g. DNA analysis, comes to light later).
One way of looking at it is to say that the ‘not proven’ verdict just allows a jury to stigmatise an accused by not returning a verdict of ‘not guilty’. In other words, they think you’re probably guilty but they don’t think the prosecution proved its case.
Like the others who’ve posted, I’d like to say just how impressed I was by all your efforts for Michael Peterson. Truly humbling.
I know the result of the first trial must have been devastating as you state. It’s hard, in hindsight, to not be critical of your performance considering he was found guilty. Of course you did an amazing job, but a few things just seem off.
The approach of the defence team during the first trial seems so cavalier, all the joking and laughter, the team seemed over-confident, almost a bit arrogant in assuming you’d prevail.
Why wasn’t your blood spatter specialist removed and replaced with a white, clearly spoken male? It seems obvious that this would have made the counter evidence provided a lot more powerful to the jury, subconscious prejudices run deep. At the least he was hard to understand which was only going to work against the defence.
Was Peterson’s history of reporting on the authorities pushed hard as a reason why the prosecution was biased and to cast doubt on their onbjectivity?
Was the fact that Kathleen had her own hair in her hands pushed hard as a point to raise doubt about what had happened? How did the prosecution explain this? How did they explain all of the puncture marks etc on her arms? All of this raises doubts.
Why didn’t you have her clothing tested for DNA to see if third party involvement could be used to raise doubt?
No disrespect intended, just questions I have. Your statement at the Alford plea was powerful and righteous, and so important for Michael. A great privilege to witness your efforts, and be provided your insights through the documentary and here.
David,
The owl theory is obviously an interesting one and seems to explain the unusual pattern of Kathleen’s scalp wounds (particularly the two tri-lobed wounds). In terms of evidence, would it not be possible to analyse Kathleen’s clothes for evidence of more feathers or bird/owl DNA (if such a thing is done) ?
Her clothes may be too contaminated to assess for the presence or absence of other human DNA but surely no other source of bird feathers will have come into contact with them?
Seems to me that the medical examiner, when conducting Kathleen’s autopsy, would have swabbed the head lacerations to determine any foreign material. If an owl did attack her, it’s DNA would have been found in the wounds.
Wow! Such a sad story, yet it is fascinating. Appearantly the dysfunctional justice system is not only in my country…You did more than you could. And I feel sorry for the Petersons. No matter what, I believe they went through an unfair and extremely long and difficult process. Such a shame…
As an attorney I was shocked that the Prosecution could argue that the blow poke was missing and infer that Mr. Petersen used it and then deliberately discarded it when it later came out (two days before the Alford plea hearing) that the police had photographed the blow poke themselves in the course of their initial investigation. This was evidence the prosecutor certainly had access to and undoubtedly would have seen. Yet an entire theory was presented in contravention to the facts. Is there no basis for attorney misconduct and loss of licence for such a blatant falsehood presented to the Court or does the fact that the former prosecutor is now is a judge on the same circuit court make him someone the Bar doesn’t dare take on?
I can’t believe the original DA wasn’t fired for misconduct. That man should absolutely NOT be involved in practicing law in any fashion, and he most certainly should not be a judge.
While I am relieved for Mr. Peterson that the judge in his case ultimately admitted he’d made some mistakes, I felt from the beginning that his mind was made up before he ever heard any arguments, and that that slimy, smirking, homophobic DA probably had something on the judge. That is the only way I can make sense of him allowing the Germany case and the emails into evidence.
I hope none of the people involved in convicting Michael Peterson ever have a decent night’s sleep again.
The world is only safe because of people like David Rudolf. I am thankful that attorneys like he, Dean Strang and Jerry Buting exist.
Query: Was Duane Deaver ever prosecuted for perjury in any of the 34 cases wherein he presented false testimony? If not, why not?
David,
Thank you for sharing your experience with the masses. I am a teacher, and I was so attracted to the way in which you communicate, both verbally and non-verbally. You conducted yourself with great patience, respect, and even levity, when appropriate. I cannot imagine the frustration this case caused you, but you were seemingly able to maintain your composure, which is incredible! I think you would make an excellent teacher. Any interest in lending your abilities to a college? Thanks again.
Jessica
I was engrossed with ‘The Staircase’ and watched all episodes in one week. I am a retired civil lawyer with some knowledge of the English criminal law and I would think that here Peterson’s conviction would simply have been quashed given the perjured evidence presented at trial. I hope the documentary leads to permanent improvements in the system and to more dedicated lawyers, like yourself, working to ensure that happens.
Hi David,
Sorry to hear about Ron passing away.
My wife and I have just finished the Staircase and were totally gripped throughout!
We generally couldn’t believe the prosecution building their case around the whole blow-poke theory.
We were totally blown away by you and your team’s investigations and professionalism and we routed for you through the whole series.
We understood that you didn’t want take the re-trial but were so happy you decided to finish the case with Michael and the Alford plea.
We will be sure to follow your future cases, my best friend is a very good lawyer here in the UK and he will be sure to watch the show!
Thank you for all your hard work in trying to put the criminal system right.
This is an example of the American “justice” system gone bad. Everyone needs to realize that this is not abnormal behavior for Prosecutors! I do not know how they sleep at night. I am disgusted with the entire system, from the Police up through the Judges in the USA. In reality, MOST Prosecutors should be put in jail for the crimes they have committed. We’re no better than Iran, or Russia, or insert any 3rd world shole. The only way to change it is to insert the public/watchdog or some sort of 3rd party entity that can oversee the “system” with the authority to fix it. There is absolutely NO accountability, nobody is minding the “minders” (at least nobody with any character/morals). This is a travesty. Blind justice? Shame America, shame.
I’m still on the fence about this case. If I were a juror at his trial, I would have seen reasonable doubt but I can honestly say, I cant say that MP did or didnt kill his wife.
I have to say that in the movie, he (MP) said a few chilling statements. Very strange indeed
@CC
There is no way to know for certain what happened that night. Personally, I believe Mr. Peterson is innocent, and after watching the documentary it’s nice to hear that you still would have had reasonable doubt and not votes to convict him.
I believe, and I think Mr. Rudolph mentions this as well, the absolute absurdity of referring to a defendant as “guilty” or “not guilty” as opposed to “guilty” or “not guilty based on reasonable doubt” because this is where jurors can get confused.
As to your thoughts on some of Mr. Peterson’s odd comments, I had the same thought but for a difference reason. For example toward the end when he’s on the phone to one of his daughters and mentions it could be him so he stays relevant (don’t remember exactly how he put it), in relation to their conversation on not having anymore f*ck ups.
The thought that people are going to hear that and immediately forget, after all of the work shown to prove an unjust legal system, (especially because of the death in Germany that should have never been introduced into trial) and think he was guilty.
I read an interview the filmmaker gave about editing anything out or what was allowed to be filmed regarding attorney-client privledge and I immediately thought this shouldn’t have been shown. Along some of his other comments.
I can understand a dark sense of humor especially to help get over, as much as one possibly could, such a tragic, exhausting, and time consuming ordeal- because I do the same thing. A lot of people do as well, which is why I wasn’t too concerned, but for the people who don’t understand that rhetoric, I assumed would have trouble separating a few “chilling” remarks made over years and years of filming with their determination of his guilt.
Then the whole point of showing how unjust a legal system can be is disregarded because a man made remarks some consider odd. Dark humor, sarcasm, whatever you say to help your grief doesn’t make you seem like more of a murderer than anyone else. (Thank god because I’d probably have been sitting in jail unjustly at some point too). Just offering some more perspective.
@Cc
I completely agree with you! Some of Mr. Peterson’s behaviors and mannerisms were very chilling. That last statement he made to one of the girls regarding someone else in his family f***ing up was the nail in the coffin for me. He laughed and joked the whole way through the trial, UNTIL…he was found guilty! Then reality set in and he realized he wasn’t going to get away with murder.
I mean, what are the chances that 2 different women in your life die under the same circumstance (falling down a staircase)…pure coincidence? I think not. It’s unheard of. I’m not convinced that this man is innocent, as there are still so many lingering questions. I do however think that the prosecution did some shady business, in which I definitely give props to Mr. Rudolf for fighting for justice for Mr. Peterson to receive a fair trial. Great work on the Defense’s part.
But I’m definitely glad Mr. Peterson’s time in the spotlight is over. He is extremely egotistical and cocky. And maybe this is his way of dealing with serious issues, but in my opinion it was uncalled for.
Hopefully Kathleen’s children and family can finally take the time to grieve instead of being forced to take part in this 15 year circus act. R.I.P Kathleen.
David, I agree with so many of the comments regarding the skill of your rhetoric throughout the deliberations.
You were so well grounded and accessible to the intelligence of others and one of the good things that had come from this tragedy is that your powerful and potent energetics foundationed in open honesty are able to be viewed by others.
It was ongoingly disheartening to watch the unjust proceedings of the prosecution and their criminal choices.
And equally disheartening to feel that the jury collapsed in their prejudices ie Michael’s occasional sexual behaviors preventing them from voting in justice.
The owl theory makes so much sense to me and for the family’s sake I’m glad it has come forward.
Thank you again for your hard work and compassionate clear thinking and your service to justice and the Peterson family.
To the Peterson family may you go forward loving your Kathleen and living out peaceful lives as would so be her wish.
I’m certain she’s sending you all her love and support from the other side.
Such an extraordinary series. Thank you, Mr. Rudolph, for your committed, professional representation of Michael Peterson. You are a ray of hope for those of us who have little hope for fairness and justice in our legal system. If there is any interest in pursuing the owl theory, I believe you would find great support for it.
Je suis impressionné de votre défense bravo et je suis convaincu de son innocence et je penche vers la théorie du hibou . Et félicitations pour votre implication dans la défense des droits de la personne ??
I finished watching this gripping documentary yesterday night here in the UK.
It must have been soul-crashing for Micheal to have had to accept the Alford plea after all the injustice done to him at the hands of the prosecution but I think it was the right thing to do. His family and him deserved some peace at last. I hope they have been able to finally move on.
David, I truly admired your determination and perseverance during the whole trial. The way you handled this case with eloquence and grace while facing blatantly biased judge and shady prosecution was owe-inspiring. Also, I’ve not realised before that lawyers can be this cool!
Wishing you nothing but success in all your future cases.
I grew up in a small North Carolina town much like Durham. You lost the initial case because the DA’s office was able to present your team and your client as outsiders.
The facts and evidence were almost secondary.
Something to remember if you take on a similar case in the future.
Dear mr. Rudolf,
3 days ago I started watching the Staircase documentary and finished episode 13 this morning. As a Dutch citizen I can’t believe what I have seen. My take is that you have done an incredible job showing the court and the jury that there was not a single piece of evidence against Michael Peterson, let alone the criteria of ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ were met. I truly enjoyed your dedication and your precise, articulated and eloquent way of presenting, which should have been more than enough to have a ‘not guilty’ verdict in the first place. In our country we have no juries but a (hopefully) unbiased and objective judge that decides. I can’t stop thinking about how Michael Peterson, his beloved ones and you and the rest of the defense team must have felt in the past 17 years.
From Holland: All the best and a big thank you for being a great person, fighting for justice and fairness.
David my wife and I stayed up till the early hours here in the UK watching The Staircase.
Thought you were amazing how you presented the case for the defence.Incredable hard work but all your team over the years to get some reasonable disclosure for your client.
We both agreed you would be definitely be on our dinner guest list.
Best wishes in all you do in the future.
I felt tremendous outrage and sadness while watching The Staircase and disgust at the chicanery undertaken during the trial. It’s astonishing to see the judicial system fail so horribly and see corruption alive and well in the courtroom. I can understand why you were devistated when the verdict came in. You have my admiration and Michael has my deepest sympathy.
I think the problem with the “Owl Theory” is that it vacates the possibility that the wounds to her scalp were a result of a fall. At a minimum, it concedes that there was certainly at least a possibility, if nothing else, that Kathleen was attacked by someone or something. If the defense had chosen to commit to this theory and the prosecution was able to poke a hole in it, then the defense would have been left conceding that Kathleen was in fact attacked, but if it wasn’t an owl and it wasn’t Mr. Peterson, then who was it? And that is a question I don’t think they would have been prepared to answer.
@Brad: Not sure what you mean by “vacates” but the Owl Theory seems perfectly consistent with a fall-based scenario. In fact, fleeing from an attacking owl makes Kathleen’s falling seem even more plausible (especially given that her blood-alcohol levels weren’t all that high). Being pursued by an angry owl could have easy led to her trying to climb the stairs without bothering to turn on a light.
As with some others here, I suspect, I’m fresh from watching the Netflix series and wanting to believe Michael — but fairly bothered by the extent of injuries and blood. This theory help bridge that dissonance gap. Without any new DNA testing, you’d think that finding just one or two confirmed raptor feathers in the mix would be compelling.
David,
I was totally impressed with your presentation and preparation of this case. Your level of professionalism is remarkable. I can understand your frustration and aquish this must have caused you.
The Justice system is so badly flawed, especially today.
Wishing you every success in all your future endeavours.
Ray
Hey, Mr. R,
I appreciate you addressing this. I’ve watched through the series twice and was rather gobsmacked that the prosecution insisted that Kathleen’s injuries were inflicted by force. With such deep lacerations, yet no bone or brain injury, their case seemed completely implausible to me.
I had only heard about the owl theory a few days ago and decided to read more about it. It certainly sounds like a solid possibility and it’s a shame it didn’t come to light earlier.
Understanding Mr. Peterson is not in a financial position to explore this theory, can any of the circumstantial evidence be used or explored to bolster his position of innocence? Is it even worth opening that can of worms?
I would think Kathleen’s family would want to know the truth.
A truly compelling series and one which raises many serious questions about just how fair the American legal system really is. I was astonished at the assumptions and lies, the sloppy forensic methods, the purely circumstantial evidence relied upon by the State, the blithe (even gleeful) incompetence of the SBI and the prejudice displayed by prosecutors – in particular the appalling woman prosecutor who virtually encouraged the jury to convict Michael Petersen on her own subjective moral grounds. Outrageous. I’ve often heard that the legal system is not about truth but about justice which is a whole other animal. It seems that in this case there was neither. David Rudolf I really admired your clear presentation of the complex legal issues in the MP case; I often wondered how emotionally draining the trial was for you too, as well as of your excellent investigator. I’m very sorry to hear of his death.
Mr. Rudolph – I do not write fan letters to anyone in the entertainment business or the law profession! However, after “binge watching” ‘The Staircase’, I found myself really impressed with you as a person and as an attorney. Of course the documentary only shows us what the producers and directors want us to see, but I have been around the block a few times to form my own “gut” feelings about people. I hope someday I get the chance to meet you in person, however, hopefully not because you have to represent me! However, if I did find myself in hot water I would want you on my side. In the end I guess I am writing a fan letter to you! I really have to think about that! Happy holidays and you really are impressive on many levels!
brings a new meaning to the word “hoodunnit”
David,
Superb effort! I was convinced that Michael was not guilty. I think you lost only because of the smear tactics of the prosecution.
Clearly, the bi-sexuality evidence was both irrelevant and prejudicial; and the evidence about the death in Germany should have been excluded, again as irrelevant and prejudicial. I do not understand what the judge was thinking – the circumstances surrounding the death in Germany were not analogous to Mrs. Peterson’s death.
Taking the Alford plea was the absolutely best approach at the end. The key objective then was to allow Michael to live the rest of his life as a free man.
Thank you. Really appreciate your thoughtful comment.
David
David, I’ve now watched the entire series. Great job all the way through the ordeal and kudos for seeing Michael through to the end. I’m totally convinced Michael was not guilty; it was just a tragic accident. I was also quite impressed with Judge Hudson’s courage and honesty at the end, after the plea, when he essentially acknowledged that he’d made mistakes in admitting evidence highly prejudicial to Mr. Peterson, and even said he could find reasonable doubt. The bottom line is that Mike Peterson is able to live the rest of his life with the family members who love him.
You’re a great criminal defense lawyer!
Absolutely brilliant work on the trial David. The prosecution were disgraceful. Fantastic documentary and very thought provoking. Great job Sir. Dan from UK.
David,
What valiant efforts by you and your colleagues.
A takeaway from The Staircase: Your reaction to the parade in Germany that you and Ron perused. As I watched that scene (and heard your comments after), I couldn’t help but have the same shiver down my spine! What a dubious metaphor for the trial events that were soon to follow….
Dear David, like many I watched The Staircase with interest. Would you have a televised case under your remit again?
Owl gouging wounds, perhaps. We’re those fatal in themselves, surely not. But if that was what the lacerations were, where is the evidence to show the fall at the stairs killed her?
Mr. Rudolf,
I too just finished the series. It’s already been said above, but you handled yourself and the case so well. I can only imagine how exhausting and soul crushing it was. I feel so bad for Micheal’s kids. It’s a disgrace what lengths the prosecution will go to just to put on a show to get a conviction.
I hope someone eggs and toilet papers Duane Deaver’s house!
Mr. Rudolf,
Just watched the series. At the beginning my belief was 100% guilty. At the end of the original trial you changed my mind! Amazing job!
Thank you!
Mr. Rudolf,
I am from Trinidad and Tobago and I have just finished watching The Staircase. Your dedication to the Peterson case is admirable. I have been very indecisive about the innocence of Mr. Peterson, but your dedication made my views shift in the favour of him being innocent. I must admit, I do still have doubts. When the verdict from the first trial was read, even though I had doubts about his innocence, my heart sank for his family. My heart also hurts for Kathleen’s family. I understand how both sides feel. I can only pray that they both get some closure about her death one day. Keep up the fantastic work, the world needs more lawyers like you.
Artee
Fascinating and educating film. Mr. Peterson was a fascinating and consistent personable character in the documentary. I was worried that the jury would buy more into the judgement of the prosecution; and the moral-oriented closing statement of the prosecution. Resulting in their decision being based in bias, rather than beyond a reasonable doubt. Makes me think of the “We vs They” mindset (Altemeyer et. al) that some who have certain worldviews carry, this SDO does not look at right or wrong based on facts. Furthermore, their right or wrong will change according to their judgment on the “they” or out group. Sometimes an out group can be gay, non-christian, for example. They also do not like to go against their perceived in group.
Of course, I had to search after watching this, because I was puzzled about the head wounds. Having smashed my head once, on an edge of a dashboard about 1 inch thick, (old Datsun pick-up), my head was split open to a gash through two layers, requiring 36 stitches on two different layers of skin. I required so many stitches and not just on one layer but 2 layers of skin. I remember just being amazed at that accident, because I was only 2 2 1/2 feet from dashboard and we were not going that fast when the driver swerved and ran off the road. Additionally, I remember how much blood there was.
Finally, I have a close friend that hikes quite a bit. She was attacked by one owl that attempted to clench her head while also diving at her, and she had to fight it off. She felt she could have been very maimed or even killed from the attack.
I would donate toward testing for the owl theory, it may be both, owl and falls. Respectively, alcohol and Xanax might inhibit motor skills when mixed together. Beautiful loving and calm family.
Also, the interview with the Judge in the end, was very telling and so sad, so disappointing. Shame on him. He should have thrown it out on due process violations or P misconduct, but I guess that is easy to say…
Mr. Rudolf you are an amazing advocate, thinker and attorney and anyone who has you in their life, to learn from, is very fortunate. I’m so happy to find this forum and look forward to checking in from time to time!
I mistakely mentioned Xanax instead of Valium in my last post. Apologies.
Mr. Rudolf,
Your dedication and level-headedness is mind-blowing. I think you’ve presented enough evidence to prove Michael Petersen’s innocence, which should have led the jury to lean towards reasonable doubt.
And, how fantastic the arguments could have been had the owl theory been introduced in 2003… I wonder how Deaver could’ve handled the “experiments.”
Hello from the Philippines.
Hey there,.
I’ve never understood why some folks are completely dismissive of -Owl Theory-,. to the point ,at times, that they’re openly condescending of anyone who would be so “foolish” as to give it credence.
Years ago I volunteered at a Raptor Center where they rehabilitated injured birds of prey for, best case scenario, return to their native habitats after healing whatever injury brought them there.
Of course there were some permanent residents of the place because they could not recuperate enough to survive the wild. What you find out being in close proximity with these birds , first and foremost , is how Huge and Dangerous their feet and talons are. Especially on the big fellas such as eagles,. their feet are quite literally bigger than my head,. and I wear a big ol’ hat on this here pumpkin.
I’ve found Owl Theory credible since the moment I first heard it. Once you have spent time up close and personal with these animals,. you cannot deny that they would Absolutely best you in a fight,. yes, even the ‘little guys’
Thank you for lending your voice to this. Thank you for raising your voice and demanding in a perfectly polite, respectful, yet firmly planted manner ,. toward those at the top of the heap who prefer to look the other way in keeping with policies or , .lets face it,. peer pressures.
It takes courage and true code to do what you do Sir,.
I admire that and wish you the best of luck with your future endeavors,. wherever they may find you, and vice versa.
peaceOut~ a.d.
If the Owl theory is to be believed, how did the woman in Germany who died under similar circumstances have similar wounds to the head as Kathleen? Are owls to blame for both deaths?! Somebody made a comment in the series which said something along the lines of ‘in crimes like these there is no such thing as coincidence’ and that always stayed with me. There is just too big of a coincidence in both deaths for me to believe there was no foul play involved.
This case is so complex and fascinating. I’m currently watching the Netflix docu.
Searching on Google I came across an analysis of MP’s 911 call by forensic statement analyst Peter Hyatt, who is convinced him to be guilty.
http://statement-analysis.blogspot.com/2018/06/the-staircase-michael-petersons-911-call.html?m=1
I would be happy to read anyone’s comments or ideas on that.
If anyone has ever been attacked by a bird such as a blue jay or a blackbird it is astonishing how much damage is done. I was attacked by a blue jay when trying to refill the bird feeder in my back yard and it caused a severe laceration requiring 4 stitches on the side of my face and upon falling off the foot ladder a broken leg. Being attacked by a raptor would do an incredible amount of damage. Mr. Rudolph, you are an incredible attorney.
The whole prosecution’s case was based on the stupid blow poke, and the blow poke was found, shouldn’t their case have “fell through”? I mean, you build a case ENTIRELY on a theory, but that theory proves false – therefore, you have no case, no? I understand that nobody knows what happened to Kathleen, so you have to speculate, but when you build a case around an imaginary murder weapon, that turns out to not be the murder weapon, I don’t understand why the prosecution still had a case…
Also, I found their experts and the police were more focused on convicting Michael than really trying to find out what happened to Kathleen… It’s very frustrating to watch!
David, I thought Michael came across not as a narcissist but as a father concerned about his kids. I know it would have been a huge risk to let him testify. Would it have been worth the risk to let him testify and allow the jury to hear him and see what kind of person he is?
First I’ve heard of the owl theory, and it makes a lot of sense to me and answers many questions. I understand the value of the documentary as means of exposing, in this case, the NC (in)justice system, but I maintain that filming this case, or any case, in real time is a misstep. This series served as a reminder to me of my duty as a juror, should I ever have the opportunity. There are evidently a breathtaking number of unethical and frankly stupid people appearing in our courts, and the import of being convinced beyond a shadow of a doubt has never been clearer to me. Obviously I owe that to the film, but it could’ve been made now instead of then and done as much good, and less harm.
I can’t believe that I just finished the entire series in one weekend. David I have a question in regards to the filming? How was it allowed in the courtroom, jails etc? Did everyone have to sign off to allow that?
For this case regardless of Mr. Peterson’s guilt/innocence, the state failed to meet it’s burden.
Better that 10 guilty men go free than 1 innocent man lose his fundamental right to liberty.
There should be more pressure on the State to be above reproach in the prosecution of their cases.
If he did do it, I am still glad that he was granted a new trial. It is mind boggling that the prosecution wasted hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars prosecuting a case with so little physical evidence. I almost wish he was guilty, otherwise we, as a society, are responsible for tearing a man’s family and his world apart, for nothing.
So it doesn’t matter if he is innocent or guilty, what matters is that the system failed, all of us.
We can do better than this.
She never made it up the stairs. The blood evidence is all at the bottom. Animation could prove that. She slipped several times. When the officer said the blood was dry upon Medics’s arrival. That’s because he was outside by the POOL for quite some time. Jesus all these clowns that are suppose to be professional’s including the Judge were such an embarrassment I could puke. They acted like all they did was lunch and gossip. If it wasn’t for Rudolf. This man would have died in prison. Rudolf reminds me of the film. Al Pacino’s AND JUSTICE FOR ALL………
I just watched the documentary and I agree that the true meaning of reasonable doubt is lost on most people serving in a jury. If they really understood it there was no way to convict Micheal Peterson. Also the judge allowing testimony about the other death was extremely prejudicial and I believe if the jury had not heard that they might not have convicted him. Seeing this case and others such as the Avery/Dassey cases, and many others makes me feel let down that we have a judicial system that a lot of the time is not about justice at all. This man’s life and his children’s lives were destroyed and what does he get for it? To still be a convicted killer and his once stepdaughter who spoke up in belief in his innocence suing him for 25 million dollars. How honorable to her mother’s memory but money heals all. You did a great job as a attorney and that conviction should have never happened.
David you have made a difference, one case at a time.