A Perfect Husband

by Aphrodite Jones

  3) Michael and Kathleen Peterson were happily married, with no history of violence—and spousal abuse didn’t generally start with murder.

  4) Michael Peterson’s grief and shock were sincere—and no one at the scene disagreed with that.

  5) Kathleen Peterson’s injuries were not consistent with a beating. No skull fractures + no other fractures + no traumatic brain injury = no beating.

  6) The bloodstain evidence was not consistent with a beating, and the state’s “real” expert did not dispute this.

  7) The information and documentation from the scene was not reliable. Garbage in, garbage out.

  8) The state relied on junk science and ignored the limitations of real science.

  9) The state relied on emotion, guess, and conjecture.

  10) The state’s investigation suffered from tunnel vision. Indictment first—evidence afterward.

  Fifty-three

  “We’re not dealing with the average individual here,” Freda Black told jurors. “We’re dealing with a fictional writer. He is a person who knows exactly how to create a fictional plot.”

  The beautiful, dark-haired Freda Black, who was presenting the first half of the state’s closing argument, was not one to mince words. She began by using the words, “soul mates.” Then she read from a set of wedding vows, telling jurors how little those vows meant to Michael Peterson.

  “Did he honor her? Did he keep her?” Black asked. “The answer to those questions is no.”

  The prosecutor described the “unnatural positioning” of Kathleen Peterson’s body, the pair of wineglasses, one with Michael’s fingerprints, a bottle of Windex that was strangely out of its place, as well as the broken crystal wineglass—all of which led prosecutors to believe that the defendant had killed his wife and then staged her death. She told jurors that Peterson was “acting” when he placed calls to 9-1-1, assuring them that Peterson wasn’t truly shaken up when he called for help, implying that police soon realized they were dealing with a calculating murderer.

  “If he’s really a grieving spouse,” Black wondered, “why did Officer McCallop see him checking his e-mails on his computer while he was in that study? Would you be checking your e-mails if your spouse was lying out in the hallway with blood everywhere?

  “Did you notice that one of the e-mails was sent at three thirty-six A.M.?” she asked. “Is it okay for Kathleen Peterson to be sleeping in the marital bed while Michael Peterson is up e-mailing Brad?”

  Freda Black disputed Rudolf’s claims that the state’s expert witnesses did not give accurate information, that the state’s experts had made assumptions that were outside their area of expertise. Black said that all of the state’s witnesses—from forensic pathologist Deborah Radisch to blood spatter expert Duane Deaver—were seasoned North Carolina officials who had no reason to misstate their findings. Black reminded the jury that any misinformation state witnesses might offer in a court of law would jeopardize their job. These professionals were unlike defense witnesses, who were highly paid to offer their testimony.

  “The defendant is so arrogant that he thinks that all these people would risk their reputations, their integrity, jobs, and freedom for him,” she quipped. “He’s that important? I think not.”

  Black spoke highly of the local police, of the medical examiners, of all the witnesses for the prosecution, assuring jurors these experts were trustworthy. She told jurors that once this case was over, the defense team’s hired witnesses would be long gone, but the hardworking team of experts in Durham would still be right there to testify in the courtroom, fighting for justice in much-less high-profile cases.

  “They might not appear on Larry King Live or Court TV,” she said, alluding to Dr. Henry Lee. “But you know what? They are tried and true, because they work for our state.”

  Black told jurors that Michael Peterson had tried to sell his staged, trumped-up story, not only to the authorities, but to his family. “And in this courtroom, he’s tried to sell it to you,” she emphasized, “a fictional plot.

  “Part of that plot,” Black said, was the “dramatic discovery of what defense claimed was the missing blow poke.”

  Freda Black questioned the timing of the appearance of the insect-covered blow poke, and said it could have easily been bought by someone on eBay. She told jurors that the item could have been purchased anytime after the fact, suggesting that it wouldn’t have taken long for cobwebs and dust to develop on the blow poke entered into evidence by the defense.

  She questioned whether the item that the defense entered was actually the original item from the Peterson household. Freda Black covered all the bases. She told jurors that even if the defense exhibit was the blow poke that belonged to Kathleen, it was of little consequence.

  The state had never claimed to have found the actual murder weapon.

  “We have never told you that we were absolutely certain that it was the blow poke that killed Mrs. Peterson,” Black asserted. “You’ve heard we believe it was something of the sort.”

  Black also concentrated on the similarities between the death of Elizabeth Ratliff and that of Kathleen Peterson. Both women were about the same age. They had similar facial features and similar bone structures. The prosecutor said that the list of similarities between the two deaths—which included timing, modus operandi, and financial gain for Michael Peterson—should be considered in their totality.

  “Do you really think that lightning strikes twice in the same place? Do you?” she asked jurors. “This defendant knew the blueprint of how to make this look like an accidental fall, because it had worked one time. And he tried to make it work again. But it didn’t.”

  As District Attorney Jim Hardin continued the closing argument, he used a simple posterboard to make swift points to jurors. A soft-spoken man, the prosecutor immediately discounted the defense theory that the victim died from a fall.

  Hardin asked that the jury use their logic, their common sense, telling them there was just too much blood in the stairwell, and too many injuries to Kathleen Peterson, for her death to have been caused by a fall. Hardin insisted that the defense “theory” was counterintuitive, that “it doesn’t fit right here in your gut.”

  “Do you really think the defendant was at the pool?” Hardin wondered. “Does the defendant really spend several hours in the winter, wearing shorts, by the backyard pool, as his wife lay dying inside? Doesn’t that strain credibility? Who in the world is going to stay outside that long? I submit to you that the defendant wasn’t out at the pool. He was in the house, committing this horrible act.”

  Jim Hardin held up an autopsy photo for jurors, urging them to remember the pain Kathleen Peterson suffered as they considered the evidence against her husband.

  “A picture is worth a thousand words. But if these walls could talk, what would they say?” Hardin asked. “Kathleen Peterson is talking to us through the blood that is on the wall. She is screaming to us for truth. And for justice.”

  Hardin would argue that no reasonable person could look at the story detailed in Mrs. Peterson’s autopsy and conclude that she had just clumsily fallen down the stairs. No one could deny the horrible reality: the combination of the fractured bone in Kathleen’s neck, her facial wounds, and the deep lacerations to her head. And then there was something else that Hardin pointed out—the absence of wounds on other parts of Kathleen Peterson’s body. If Kathleen Peterson had fallen down the stairs, Hardin reminded jurors, there would have been bruises to obvious places, to her larger body parts. But there weren’t.

  “Common sense tells you this was a beating. This wasn’t a fall. This is a horrible way to die. It must have taken her a long time to die. She’s fighting for her life. That’s why there’s so much blood,” Hardin insisted. “He assaulted her. She went down. He continued to assault her. That’s when premeditation formulated.

  “Thirty-eight injuries, ladies and gentlemen,” the prosecutor continued. “How in the world does someone get thirty-eight
injuries over their face, back, hands, and wrists by falling down some steps? Even if there were two falls? That makes absolutely no sense.

  “This is not a whodunit,” Jim Hardin insisted. “If you find that this was murder, there’s only one person who could have done it—Michael Peterson.”

  Fifty-four

  Profile of a sociopath

  In the 1830s, this disorder was called “moral insanity.” By 1900, it was changed to “psychopath.” More recently, the term used is “sociopath,” also known as “antisocial personality disorder.” A sociopath has an outstanding capacity to charm and seduce followers. Because the sociopath appears to be “normal,” the sociopath is not easily recognizable as being deviant or disturbed. While many sociopaths are mind-manipulating cult leaders, the traits of the sociopath can also apply to one-on-one relationships. Note: the below traits of the sociopath are based on the psychopathy checklists of H. Cleckley and R. Hare:

  *Glibness and Superficial charm. Language can be used by them, without any effort, to convince their audience. They are captivating storytellers who exude confidence.

  *Manipulative and Conning. They see their self-serving behavior as permissible and never recognize the rights of others. They appear to be charming, yet are secretly hostile and domineering.

  *Grandiose Sense of Self. They must be the center of attention. They use their own fantasies to create an us-versus-them mentality.

  *Early Behavior Problems. They usually have a history of just “getting by” through conning others. They have problems in keeping friends and exhibit aberrant behaviors such as cruelty to people or animals.

  *Pathological Lying. They create a complex belief about themselves and their abilities, and it is virtually impossible for them to be truthful on a consistent basis.

  *Shallow Emotions. They show what seems to be joy and love, but it is more feigned than real. They are outraged by insignificant matters, yet completely unmoved by what would upset a normal human being.

  *Poor Behavioral Control and Impulsive Nature. They alternate small expressions of love with acts of rage and abuse. They believe they are all-knowing, yet have no concern for their impact on others.

  *Irresponsibility. They are not concerned with ruining other people’s lives and are indifferent or oblivious to the devastation they cause.

  *Promiscuous Sexual Behavior and Infidelity. They engage in sexual acting out of all sorts, usually kept hidden.

  *Parasitic Lifestyle. They make all-encompassing promises without having a realistic life plan. Their opulent lifestyle is supported by donations and gifts from those who are pressured to give, through fear or guilt.

  *Lack of Remorse, Shame, or Guilt. They have a deep-seated rage at the core. To them, the end justifies the means, and nothing stands in their way.

  Fifty-five

  A favorable omen for the defense came when the jury composition had been changed, last minute. Three jurors were dismissed, replaced for varying reasons, and in an unexpected turn of events, one of the alternate jurors brought on board was a male nurse, leaving the final jury of twelve with three nurses in the deliberation room. The public speculated that the new makeup of the jury might very well cause a problem. The alternates, perhaps, hadn’t been paying as much attention. People surmised that the deliberations would be more difficult than anyone had first realized.

  As jurors were considering the charge of first-degree murder, they sorted through dozens of exhibits, multiple photos, transcripts of testimony, and, of course, the set of identical blow pokes. On day two of deliberations, court clerks had been asked to bring them a boom box and the cassette tape of Peterson’s 9-1-1 calls. Also on day two, jurors requested a transcript of Jim Hardin’s opening statement, in which the prosecutor first mentioned the blow poke as the possible murder weapon.

  Since opening statements could not be considered evidence, Jim Hardin was able to argue that successfully that the transcript would not be provided. David Rudolf, however, argued, “if the jury wants to look at the prosecutor’s opening statement to see what he did or didn’t prove, that’s appropriate.” Rudolf insisted that Hardin wanted to “run from his opening,” and he asked Judge Hudson to inform jurors about Jim Hardin’s objection to their being given a transcript. His request was denied.

  The fact that jurors wanted to review Hardin’s remarks, the fact that they were examining 9-1-1 tapes, along with the identical blow pokes, did not bode well for the state. Clearly, the jurors wanted to check to see just how specific Jim Hardin had been when he spoke about the murder weapon in his opening remarks, which meant they had a question about the credibility of the state’s case. Media reports surmised that the jurors wanted to see what the prosecutor had promised, to see what he did and didn’t deliver.

  If jurors were counting on the blow poke as the weapon, if they were counting on the state to prove it, the jury could vote not guilty based on that alone. The jurors had a lot to think about. Since they were not given the option of convicting Peterson of the lesser offense of second-degree murder, they had to find him guilty of first-degree, premeditated murder, or let him walk as a free man.

  On the third day of deliberations, the defense team sat in the courtroom, looking somewhat glib. Michael Peterson sat with his whole team, all of whom seemed to be awaiting a verdict in their favor. Michael, in fact, felt comfortable enough to slouch down in a courtroom seat that was marked for the district attorney, the defendant resting his head on the back of the chair, his designer loafers propped on the courtroom railing. David Rudolf was also kicking back, having slipped on a pair of white headphones, listening to an eclectic mix of music on his iPod player.

  While the jurors continued to mull over Peterson’s fate, giving no hint that they were reaching a decision, prosecutors were cautiously absent from the courtroom. Jim Hardin, Freda Black, and David Saacks remained in their sixth-floor offices of the Durham County Courthouse, trying not to second-guess themselves. The team had already decided, if there was a hung jury, they would try Michael Peterson again. They had already made initial preparations about which witnesses to call. They decided they would be able to retry the case with a much shorter witness list, and knew that they would focus on the “red neurons” present in Kathleen’s brain, scientific proof that she had been dead for two hours before Peterson made his 9-1-1 calls.

  Behind the guarded wall of the deliberation room, the jury of seven women and five men had come to a standoff. They were split, six to six, and for two days the jurors honestly thought they were never going to be able to come to an agreement. The jurors had studied the lacerations on Kathleen’s skull. They had examined the blood spatter on the inside of Peterson’s shorts. The jurors could see, from photo exhibits of the crime scene, that there was blood on top of dried blood on the wall of the stairwell. Yet, when they first began deliberating, five of them were undecided, four thought Peterson was guilty, and three thought he was not guilty. It wasn’t until the end of the third day that everyone came to believe Mrs. Peterson had died as a result of a beating. But then, the trouble was, the jurors could not agree as to whether or not the beating had been an act of premeditation.

  Their arguments went back and forth. The jurors were sometimes crying, sometimes fighting, as they reexamined the autopsy photos. Late in the afternoon, day three of their arguments, the jury was split, ten to two, with two people still believing that Michael Peterson was not guilty.

  Those who felt Peterson was guilty had taken the position that a) Michael stood over his wife, watching her as she bled to death, or b) he had gone back into the stairwell to finish her off. Either way, ten of the jurors felt convinced that his actions were premeditated, because there was evidence that Kathleen had managed to stand on her own two feet after his initial attack.

  But the other two jurors would have to think about it. They needed to find evidence that met all five aspects of first-degree murder: premeditation, malice, cause, deliberation, and intent. The twelve jurors agreed to go home
and sleep on it.

  It was on October 10, 2003, in the midmorning of the fourth day, when the jury had reached a unanimous decision. Everyone scrambled into the courtroom, Michael Peterson having his family huddled around him as the manila envelope was handed to the court clerk Angela Kelly, who read the verdict aloud:

  “We, the twelve members of the jury, unanimously find the defendant, Michael Iver Peterson, to be guilty of first-degree murder.”

  Peterson’s brothers, Bill and Jack, looked completely stunned. His sons, Clayton and Todd, just stared off into space. Margaret and Martha Ratliff wrapped their arms around each other and sobbed. Hearing their cries as handcuffs were placed on his wrists by deputies, Michael Peterson turned to the two girls, telling them, “It’s okay, it’s okay.”

  Michael Iver Peterson was immediately sentenced to serve the mandatory life in prison without parole, he was led away from the courtroom, and whisked to the Nash Correctional Institution, located about seventy miles from Durham, where he would spend the remainder of his natural life. There he would join another infamous prisoner, former Carolina Panther Rae Carruth, who was still serving his prison term of eighteen years, for having plotted to kill his pregnant girlfriend, Cherica Adams.

  Peterson’s lawyers said they planned to appeal Peterson’s conviction on at least two grounds: the judge’s decision to admit evidence about Peterson’s alleged homosexual conduct, and the testimony about Elizabeth Ratliff’s 1985 death in Germany.

  “Frankly, I don’t understand the verdict,” a very solemn David Rudolf said, speaking to reporters on the courthouse steps. “I am very, very, very disappointed.”

  Throughout the weeks and weeks of testimony, Michael Peterson had taken extensive notes on legal pads. It turned out that the novelist had a book deal waiting for him over at the HarperCollins publishing house. However, the deal was contingent upon Michael Peterson’s being found innocent, and thus was immediately withdrawn.