The Michael Peterson Case

[farce©]

I want the owl theory to be plausible because it makes for a much better story.

 

[gtyellowjacket]

@Rock - Is it possible to write a script where every gt post has a bot that automatically responds with this phrase?

I think it would save us time and make the board more efficient.

Sorry you don't have your echo chamber anymore. Have you looked for a board where you can make sure no one reads an opinion you disagree with like the one that failed? This one only lets you make that decision for yourself with the ignore function.

 

[finesse]

Unless there's a suggestion that the jury was tainted, I don't see any reason to question the verdict. I feel sure they saw all the evidence in excruciating detail that we will never get. I'm gonna put the owl theory in that "anything is possible" and continue to not really give a shit. It would be shocking to me if there was any real injustice and it's antithetical to our country and justice system to second guess our institutions for so little reason.

 

[Bobfripp]

I want the owl theory to be plausible because it makes for a much better story.

 

[C-Money]

Yep, her bloodstains inside his shorts was evidence he stood over her and beat her after he pushed her down the stairs.

After the verdict jurors were interviewed by the media. The jury consensus was that their visit to the crime scene in the stairwell made it clear to them that the massive amount of her blood on the wall and ceiling was not due to her slip and fall down some steps in the staircase.

That's my thought as well. I just don't see how a fall down the stairs can cause that much blood and the huge lacerations to her head. Plus, the fire poker being missing helps make the case he hit her with it. I think it's just common sense with all the evidence.

 

[gtyellowjacket]

That's my thought as well. I just don't see how a fall down the stairs can cause that much blood and the huge lacerations to her head. Plus, the fire poker being missing helps make the case he hit her with it. I think it's just common sense with all the evidence.

They found a fire poker much later in the investigation. Maybe during the trial. It was in storage and dusty with no signs of blood. No guarantee that it was the fire poker but they would have had to find an identical fire poker that was dusty with no one else finding out.

 

[gtyellowjacket]

Unless there's a suggestion that the jury was tainted, I don't see any reason to question the verdict. I feel sure they saw all the evidence in excruciating detail that we will never get. I'm gonna put the owl theory in that "anything is possible" and continue to not really give a shit. It would be shocking to me if there was any real injustice and it's antithetical to our country and justice system to second guess our institutions for so little reason.

I think the big reason to question the verdict was the Duane Deaver testimony. He was the sbi's blood spatter expert. He straight up perjured himself. That guy was a terrible person and ruined the lives of some innocent people.

Peterson could still be guilty of course but Deaver's fraudulent testimony was what ultimately got Peterson his appeal.

 

[fourheels]

I think the big reason to question the verdict was the Duane Deaver testimony. He was the sbi's blood spatter expert. He straight up perjured himself. That guy was a terrible person and ruined the lives of some innocent people.

Peterson could still be guilty of course but Deaver's fraudulent testimony was what ultimately got Peterson his appeal.

Not a commentary one way of another on the Peterson case but Deaver royally screwed over a bunch of innocent people over the years. Greg Taylor's story is pretty incredible and maddening.

In Pursuit of Justice tells the story of Greg Taylor. His case proves criminal justice reform is possible.

This documentary tells the story of Greg Taylor, his 17-year long battle to gain his freedom, and of the criminal justice reform that set him free.

inpursuitofjusticefilm.com

 

[heelinhell]

I think the big reason to question the verdict was the Duane Deaver testimony. He was the sbi's blood spatter expert. He straight up perjured himself. That guy was a terrible person and ruined the lives of some innocent people.

Peterson could still be guilty of course but Deaver's fraudulent testimony was what ultimately got Peterson his appeal.

Deaver's testimony was not crucial to proving the case against Peterson. If the prosecution had known his history they would not have to have had his testimony to prove their case.

Regarding finding the poker in the garage at the end of the trial by the defense, if it wasn't staged by the defense then the Durham police were incompetent in investigating the garage with a fine tooth comb and finding no poker.

 

[uncleradar]

State Medical Examiner felt scalp injuries were more consistent with blows from an empty wine bottle. No shortage of those in Peterson household.

 

[Icky Mettle]

Unless there's a suggestion that the jury was tainted, I don't see any reason to question the verdict. I feel sure they saw all the evidence in excruciating detail that we will never get. I'm gonna put the owl theory in that "anything is possible" and continue to not really give a shit. It would be shocking to me if there was any real injustice and it's antithetical to our country and justice system to second guess our institutions for so little reason.

The conviction based on the jury verdict was vacated after it was shown that the state presented flawed and misleading evidence that was deemed junk science (blood spatter evidence). So not only was the verdict questioned, but the court found it shouldn’t stand due to tainted evidence.

The owl theory was never presented at trial because none of that came to defense counsel’s attention until after the trial. After the conviction was thrown out, Peterson eventually pled to lesser charges that gave him time served.

I attended a CLE recently where David Rudolf (lead defense counsel at trial) discussed the case, and it sounded like if he had been aware of the owl defense prior to trial, he may have used it. He spent much of the time explaining what he learned after the fact about the owl theory. Beforehand, he asked the lawyers in the audience what they thought of the owl theory. Some thought it was plausible and others didn’t. Afterwards, at least some of those who initially thought it implausible changed their minds.

 

[Icky Mettle]

Deaver's testimony was not crucial to proving the case against Peterson. If the prosecution had known his history they would not have to have had his testimony to prove their case.

Regarding finding the poker in the garage at the end of the trial by the defense, if it wasn't staged by the defense then the Durham police were incompetent in investigating the garage with a fine tooth comb and finding no poker.

The judge who heard Peterson’s motion for appropriate relief thought Deaver’s testimony was crucial, hence he vacated the conviction based on his testimony.

 

[uncleradar]

The conviction based on the jury verdict was vacated after it was shown that the state presented flawed and misleading evidence that was deemed junk science (blood spatter evidence). So not only was the verdict questioned, but the court found it shouldn’t stand due to tainted evidence.

The owl theory was never presented at trial because none of that came to defense counsel’s attention until after the trial. After the conviction was thrown out, Peterson eventually pled to lesser charges that gave him time served.

I attended a CLE recently where David Rudolf (lead defense counsel at trial) discussed the case, and it sounded like if he had been aware of the owl defense prior to trial, he may have used it. He spent much of the time explaining what he learned after the fact about the owl theory. Beforehand, he asked the lawyers in the audience what they thought of the owl theory. Some thought it was plausible and others didn’t. Afterwards, at least some of those who initially thought it implausible changed their minds.

Did David Rudolph show you pictures of her scalp lacerations? I can't believe anyone who has seen the autopsy photos would believe an owl could do that. Is there a werewolf theory?

 

[Icky Mettle]

This is going to sounds like a diskish response but I dont mean it that way.

Are we talking "if it doesnt fit, you must acquit" plausible or more real world?

Plausible in the sense that, at minimum, it very well could have led me to have a reasonable doubt that Peterson committed the murder. I say that without having seen all of the state’s evidence, and I definitely would like to see all of the evidence before making any real determination. But based on what I know about the owl theory and some of the facts, I found it compelling.

 

[heelinhell]

The conviction based on the jury verdict was vacated after it was shown that the state presented flawed and misleading evidence that was deemed junk science (blood spatter evidence). So not only was the verdict questioned, but the court found it shouldn’t stand due to tainted evidence.

The owl theory was never presented at trial because none of that came to defense counsel’s attention until after the trial. After the conviction was thrown out, Peterson eventually pled to lesser charges that gave him time served.

I attended a CLE recently where David Rudolf (lead defense counsel at trial) discussed the case, and it sounded like if he had been aware of the owl defense prior to trial, he may have used it. He spent much of the time explaining what he learned after the fact about the owl theory. Beforehand, he asked the lawyers in the audience what they thought of the owl theory. Some thought it was plausible and others didn’t. Afterwards, at least some of those who initially thought it implausible changed their minds.

The jurors who were interviewed after the verdict said that viewing the crime scene and seeing the massive amount of blood in the stairwell was the compelling evidence that influenced the verdict.

I think the " owl theory " was introduced by a relative of Peterson...maybe his brother ? At any rate, blaming an owl for her death is beyond silly.

 

[uncleradar]

The jurors who were interviewed after the verdict said that viewing the crime scene and seeing the massive amount of blood in the stairwell was the compelling evidence that influenced the verdict.

I think the " owl theory " was introduced by a relative of Peterson...maybe his brother ? At any rate, blaming an owl for her death is beyond silly.

Nick Gaiifianakis (a neighbor and friend of Mike's) came up with the owl theory.