All language subtitles for The Staircase - Chapter 5 - A Weak Case

Time was 2.40.54am.

OK, and if you would, please,

go ahead and describe to the jury

what you did as it related to

the call that you
received at that time.

I answered a 911 call from
a man who stated that there was

an accident at his house.

And I asked him what kind
of accident,

he said his wife had fallen
down some steps.

I asked him at that time if she was
breathing and he said yes.

I then asked him how many steps
she fell down. He said,

"I don't know", and I asked him
again, and he said, "15 or 20."

He was doing some crying and stuff
in the background,

and then I asked him again,
"Sir, is she still breathing?"

And he said, "Yes",
and he eventually disconnected. OK.

I take it over the course
of five years you've answered

lots of 911 calls.
Yes, of course.

And heard lots of different people
asking for help. Yes.

And heard people who call up calm,

people who call up excited
and everything in between.

Yes.

And the way you described
Mr Peterson on that tape...

Objection.

Overruled.
..was as hysterical, right?

Very upset, yes. Well, you actually
said hysterical. Hysterical.

Indeed, that's what you put on
that CAD form. Yes.

Cos that's how he struck you? Yes.
That's all I have, thank you, ma'am.

You have no way of knowing whether
he was feigning

all those actions and noises on
his end of the phone call, do you?

No, sir. No other questions.

TAPE PLAYER CLICKS

'911, what's your emergency?

'1810 Cedar Street, please!

'What kind? My wife's had an
accident, she's still breathing.

'What kind of accident?

'She fell down the stairs.
She's still breathing, please.

'Is she conscious? What? Is she
conscious? No, she's not conscious.

'How many stairs
did she fall down? Huh?

'How many stairs? Stairs?
How many stairs?

MICHAEL PANTS AND MOANS

'Calm down, sir.

'Calm down. Oh, 15, 20,
I don't know. Please!

'Get somebody here
right away, please!

'OK, somebody is dispatching
the ambulance

'while I ask you questions.'

'It's in Forest Hills, OK?
Please, please!

'Sir, somebody else is
dispatching the ambulance.

'OK, is she awake now?

MICHAEL SOBS

'Hello?

'Hello?'

WHIMPERING

LINE GOES DEAD

'Hello, 911, where is your
emergency? Where are they?!

'1810 Cedar. She's not breathing,
please, please!

'Would you hurry up! Sir, sir,
do not hang up, they are on the way.

'Can you tell me for sure
she's not breathing? Sir?

LINE GOES DEAD
'Hello? Hello?

'Damn.'

Now, we hear the dial tone,

and I think we show that
in the transcript...

on two occasions.
What does that mean?

It would mean that the call was
terminated. On which side?

It would be on the caller's side.

OK. Your Honour, I have
no other questions.

The Arrival of the Queen
of Sheba by Handel

This is the other piece I wanted to
play at the, eh... At the funeral.

It's just a wonderful piece
of music.

Invitation to the Dance.

Everything.

Margaret, Martha, you guys...

Everybody involved, it's just awful.

Awful! As if the death wasn't
enough, and all the rest of it.

But that's when I channel it
into other things.

Yeah, distract yourself and...
Mm-hmm.

And you're always doing things,
busy. Yes.

A great deal of selfishness and ego
goes away with age.

You can't help it.

You watch yourself get old and ugly
and fat and stupid.

The ego declines. It should, anyway.

And so you worry more about
other things, other people.

The ones you love. The dogs!

HE CHUCKLES

I'm mostly just worried about,
you know, how you're doing. I know.

And yeah, mostly just coping with
everything. I cope pretty well.

Where's my lighter here?

Yeah, well, you haven't got any
choice, it's one of those things.

That's what I've always believed.

Can't do anything about it,
why worry about it?

Which is, you know,
pretty much how Kathleen felt,

and what we're trying to get
Becky to feel.

Hey, if you can't do anything...
Can't do a fucking thing about it.

Fuck it, don't worry about it.
Can't change anything.

It's like worrying about... anything.

Gee, I mean,
worry about dying - well, don't,

because you're going to die!

So what's the point in
thinking about it?

No, I think I cope pretty well
with it.

You going to be all right?
MICHAEL SIGHS/TODD LAUGHS

Yes, I'm going to be fine,
thank you very much.

Jesus! Sorry, Dad.

The more you worry about me,
the more worried I get! Stop it.

Well, you know...
Let me worry about you, hm?

God.
HE LAUGHS

Hm?

Those appear to be the shorts
Mr Peterson had on the night...

The front and the back... Yes, sir.

At this point
we'd move into evidence

what's marked State's Exhibit 4A.

The victim was dressed in sweats.

She had on a sweatshirt
and sweatpants.

I observed that, again,

what appeared to be large quantities
of blood all over the floor,

all over the victim, her hands,
feet, her clothing,

the walls, there were paper towels
around the body and there was

a towel under her head.

What was the condition of the blood
on the floor? It was dry. OK.

Could you tell what the condition of
the blood was on the stairs?

It was dry.

What was the condition of the blood
on the walls of the stairway,

if you could see that?
It appeared to be dry.

It appeared to have been either
wiped or smeared.

The first thing that came to me,

with the amount of
training I've had,

from what I observed in
the stairwell, this did not

appear to be what I would have
considered a fall down the steps.

Mr George, I want you to come down,

I don't want you
to narrate anything,

I just want you to look at
the videotape.

You actually made the videotape?

Yes, this is a copy of the videotape
I made the evening of the 9th.

See ya.

Well, let me talk about that issue
a little bit, you have all

this testimony from these officers
saying the blood appeared dry.

None of them touched the blood,
they said it appeared dry.

Yet, on cross-examination,

they all agreed that they didn't put
any of that in their report.

What we really need in this case
are the experts to tell us how long

does it take for blood to dry,

how long does it take for it
to dry on plaster,

how long does it take for it to dry
on wood, and how long does it take

for a pool of blood versus a spatter
of blood versus a cast-off stain?

These are... OK.

TRAIN HORN BLASTS

You know, when I look at what
we can get out of George,

it seems to me that whatever
I can do to establish

that there have been changes
in the scene, wherever they are,

changes in the blood,

changes in the things
that have blood on them...

once we do that, then it's not
a very big jump to the fact

that nothing in that stairway
can be relied upon.

And there's a great quote from
Epstein's blood spatter...

Actually, it's from
the North Carolina

Justice Academy Blood Spatter
Interpretation Manual.

"It is vital that the crime scene be
preserved in absolutely

"its original condition

"whenever any blood stain pattern
interpretation is to be done.

"Even the movement of
a single blood-stained object in

"the scene can significantly affect
the interpretation

"of the spatter patterns."

And then I thought I'd get into...

some of these photos.
And that's where we'd get into...

The photos where there's
differences,

not the direction of blood
spatter photos?

No, not the direction of
blood spatter stuff.

Well, we know that it happened...

We know the pictures were
taken by the 10th.

And some of them were taken
on the 9th,

because they actually have the date
on them. Right. So, for example...

We've got the photo next
to the oven,

and there's actually two things
changed about that.

A drop disappears and another
drop is added. Right.

You know, what I love is that
these two pictures

don't have any date on them.

They have no date.
So when were these taken?

That's what we'll start with.

This is a picture right here of
the area right by the sink, right?

And can we go to the next photo?

That's a close-up of the same area,
is it not? Yes, it is. All right.

Now, what we have here is
a side-by-side comparison

of those two areas, you see that?
I do.

You see that little spot
right there? Yes, sir, I do.

That's not there, is it?
No, it isn't. Do you know why?

During our processing, if you also
notice right in the centre

of the picture on the right, there
is a little stain there also.

That one? Yes, sir.

And that's missing on there. Right.

So on each photo you have a stain
that's not on the other photo.

I was explaining that when those
photos were processed,

that was part of
a photo glitch there in the centre.

Photo glitch? That was in
the processing,

something happened
in the processing.

So that's not really
a blood stain there? No, sir, it is.

How would someone looking at that
know that? They wouldn't.

Did you note it anywhere?

No, sir. And that's a glitch too?
I don't really know.

Well, you don't...?
I did not process those pictures.

Well, how do you know this is
a glitch then?

I was explained that later on.
Who explained that to you?

I don't really recall
who did it right now.

Do you know how many glitches
there are in the photos? No, sir.

That's the only two
that I've observed.

Ron found a number of photos
where there are

really small differences,
but very significant differences.

Uh, between two photos taken of the
same object by the police, at a time

when Michael Peterson was in
a den somewhere under police watch

or else out of the house.

Their experts look at things like
this, these things with

numbers here, and they say,
"Well, you see,

"that's a skeletonised
blood stain.

"That means someone tried
to clean up this area,

"and what happened was the blood
stain was very dry

"on the outer ring,
cos that's where it dries first,

"and much less dry in the middle,
and so when someone came through

"and tried to clean it,
all they wiped up was the middle."

Well then,
when you go back to another photo -

and both of these were taken
on 12/9, the same day -

and you look at these
same blood stains,

they're completely filled in.

And so to the extent
their expert is saying,

"Oh, there was clean-up here,"

well, if there was clean-up,
it was clean-up by the police,

not by Michael Peterson.

And that's the kind of thing I think
that really creates questions

in the minds of the jurors.

Would you want to bet your own life
on the competence

of Dan George and the Durham
crime scene investigators?

Because if you wouldn't want to bet
your own life on them,

then don't bet
Michael Peterson's life.

See that area right there?
Yes, sir. Let's blow that up.

That's that area, right?
It appears to be, yes, sir.

And you see there's sort of a
skeletonised series of blood stains?

I see that, yes, sir.

All right, let's take a look at
another photo of that same step.

Now, if we look at the area here and
compare it with the area here,

there are some differences,

aren't there?

It is. For example,

that one right there is
skeletonised,

that one right there is full,
that's partially...

Hold on, Tom.

That's partially skeletonised and
that's full, right? Yes, sir.

And the police took both of
these photos, right?

That's correct.

Mr Peterson wasn't in the stairway
doing anything

between the taking
of these photos, right?

No. Do you know which photo
was taken first?

I do not.

Well, do you have an explanation
for why they're different?

I don't have an explanation for it.

Are you thinking that
that's a glitch? No, sir.

This is contamination
in the crime scene, right?

And there you see Rudolf continuing
his attack on the witness,

who is basically helping the state

support the integrity
of that crime scene.

Do you have a question for Jean
about the crime scene?

I did, I'm still bothered by
the fact that there were footprints,

I believe, in the kitchen,
and the blood had been cleaned up,

and I still have not
seen an explanation

of when they were cleaned and why.

Jean, before we go to break, I want
to ask you another question -

are you telling me that bloody
footprints were cleaned up... What?

..before the police arrived?

I think we have to assume
at this point... What?!

..the prosecution is going to say
they were cleaned up,

but the defence is going to say
the defendant was hysterical

and walking in circles
everywhere he went,

and as you keep walking,
the blood on your feet is going to

become fainter and fainter,
pretty soon it's not going to be...

Well, forget about Nancy,
Jean is at least

supposed to be
correcting things.

Who? Who the fuck is...?

Wait - who has said that anyone
washed the floor in the kitchen?

If you washed the floor, there
wouldn't be any luminol footprints.

Is she an idiot?!

She says, "Oh, yeah,
we'll just have to wait and see,

"that's what it sounds like."

No, no. Because there wasn't any
wipe marks, or swipe marks.

And the mop was tested,
and there was no blood.

I mean, come on, you know...

She's saying stuff there that,
it's just... I understand you want

to pump the ratings or whatever,
but gimme a break. And I'm not

fussing at you, I understand
you didn't have anything

to do with it, but it's... you know,
if you are supposed to be informing

the public about what's going on,
she ought to have her ass fired.

It's just awful.
It's one thing,

you sort of expect
it from Nancy Grace,

but for the correspondent
who's sat in the court...

It's like she didn't
see what happened today!

COOKER CLICKS

I can't believe they were trying
to say that Dad faked that

911 call. Yeah, that was
the dumbest... Oh, my God.

That really was dumb. That was
so stupid of Jim Hardin,

to just sit there and say that.

Especially that day, when you're
crying right there.

I tried so hard not to cry too,
it was horrible... starting to cry

and all of a sudden you feel
the cameras on you, it's like...

I know, right? It's the money shot.

Well, no, but even Caitlin cried at
the opening statement

when Rudolf played the 911 tapes.

And Caitlin just wasn't there
that day that Hardin...

Oh, she wasn't there?
No, she wasn't there,

she probably would have been
crying too.

Did she cry in the opening
statement? Yeah. Well, I mean...

Do you think it was like
an... indignation, is that the word?

Indignant crying or whatever?
Or was it, like, she really felt...?

I'm sure... It's just a terrible
situation for everybody.

I'm sure everyone's tears are real.
That's what I thought.

You know, if you do it
a tad second too long,

you lose the perfection
of my special recipe.

That right?

Are you going to drink cranberry
juice or...? Yeah, cranberry juice.

No wine? No. All right.
You going to drink a little

champagne to toast yourself?

I might have a little half
a glass. OK, all right.

And this is of course to Bill...
For my birthday, really?

Well, yes, but for
other reasons too.

And there's a lesson here, and it's
for you guys, because I could not

have gotten through this without
my brother, and I of course will

be there for him soon, I suppose,
when he is incontinent and...

LAUGHTER

..slobbering.

But it is a wonderful lesson
for you and your brother,

and for your sisters and your
brothers. It goes to la famiglia.

And to Bill. La famiglia! Hey, Dad,
when you're acquitted,

you're going to come down
and visit me?

I will come down right away.
Yay. Mm-hmm.

Have you thought this through?
Wouldn't he be an embarrassment?

Only two more months, right? All of
October, all of September,

all of August...
They're saying October now.

They're saying October now?
It's spilled over into October.

Are you kidding me?
That's what Court TV says.

But... We talked about that
last night, we'll be here for

Halloween and we're going to have
Mike Peterson masks made out.

"Give me your candy or
I'll shove you."

Little blow pokes!

You got it, Todd? Yeah.

Stop. Stop. Stop, stop, stop, stop.

We got to get that. Margaret,
you can carry this.

That's so wrong, just wait for
your next birthday, Dad.

MICHAEL LAUGHS

♪ Happy birthday to you

♪ Happy birthday to you

♪ Happy birthday, dear Bill

♪ Happy birthday to you. ♪

THEY APPLAUD

Are you able to say or give this
jury a minimum number of

blows that you contend would
have been inflicted

to Miss Peterson to cause
what we see here?

Yes. On the night that
I was at this scene,

I gave Detective Holland
a minimum of four blows

that occurred to the victim.

The reason for that was that I found
three points of origin from impact.

That means that the source of blood,
the back of the head,

was struck three times.

I add one to that because there
needs to be at least one blow

that occurs to start bleeding.

One of the points of origin
is 19 inches from step 17,

8 inches up from the east wall, and
6 inches out from the north wall.

At that point would her face have
been up or down?

If the face were up,
out here in space,

and something impacted
the head from the bottom,

then the impact spatters are going
to go down on the floor and

on the wall low,
below the head itself.

Therefore, the source of blood,
the back of the head,

is going to have to be up
and be impacted in space such that

the blood spatters can go up
the walls

and create the blood spatters
that you see in Paragraph E.

You've got cast-off outside
on that header and on the west wall

on the hallway.

Exactly how could that happen?

It would be my opinion that this
cast-off stain that created this,

and this pattern on this wall, was
created at or about the same time

that the impact over
step number 15 was created.

It's my opinion that
the individual creating that

was standing on the outside,
able to swing the weapon,

creating this cast-off stain.

My opinion is that this
is the scene of a beating,

that this scene is not unlike
many scenes that I have been to,

and the spatters,
the impact spatters,

are like those consistent
with beatings

that I have seen in the past.

So they're putting blood on a sponge
on top of a mannequin's head.

A lot of blood.

OVERLAPPING VOICES

It's a Styrofoam head
with a sponge on it.

This is quite an impressive
scientific method, don't you think?

The first group of experiments
is elimination. Yes, exactly.

She cannot be accidental,
a fall, from two or three high.

Now you see how much blood spatter.

You actually see a fair amount
along the base there.

They actually proved that you get
a fair amount of spatter low down!

Then, of course, there's the piece
of skull that they don't pick up.

I'd love to hear the audio.
Do they have an audio?

He says, "Give me another sponge.

"Here, let's put the sponge
down on the floor."

So they put the sponge down
on the floor.

"Now, let's beat it some more."

Watch.

One, two...

Oh, broke.

Three, four, five, six, seven.

Eight, nine.

They still don't have the spatter
the way they want it.

CHUCKLING

Hey, Tim.
Boy, these guys work late too, huh?

We all work late.

Hey, my friend.
Hi, buddy, how you doing?

Good, nice to see you. You too, man.
How you hanging on? Good.

Tom? Hey, you have a good trip?
Piece of cake.

He worked from the end result
backwards. He basically wanted

to recreate something.
He looked at the pictures!

So his goal was,
"I need this end product.

"What do I have to do to get there?"

That's dead polar opposite
to good science.

Good science says we don't care
what the end product is,

it's all about developing through
data collection and conjecture

a good hypothesis, and whatever
the outcome it is, it shows.

It shows. It shows.

When you do that, you need to say,
"Is there any other

"hypothesis or explanation that
could have done this?"

And if there is,
I must also test that.

If Deaver should have done
any experiment,

that's the one
he should have tried to do.

The two points of origin are...

He's trying to put it out in space,
you know? You just can't...

You can't... It's an area, it's not
a point. That's absolutely right.

So your area, one of them
was two inches, one was six.

In a macroscopic view,
it's on the wall. Right.

It's right there.

You've got the impact
to the back of the head.

How can you orientate that
so that it's two inches from there?

Even if I take your head and I
physically hold it against there,

physically hold it, you're still
more than two inches.

Stop it right there.

Now, how did you determine that
you were going to strike

that source of blood
from behind the stairway?

I wanted to see what it would do
from that side. Why is that?

Just simply as an observation.

So you'd rather see it from
that side

than from the side
you thought it happened from?

Yes.

All right. I notice that...
Can we go back for a second?

OK, let's just replay that again.

Let's watch how high you go.

I notice that you go about that
high, right? That amount of force.

About that much.

Can we play it through?

Like that.

Right? Stop it. That's correct.

You realise that when somebody's
trying to beat somebody to death,

generally speaking, they're not
going like this, right, sir?

Generally speaking, if somebody's
trying to beat somebody to death,

they're not going like that, right?

That has nothing to do with
these experiments.

I was simply producing
an impact spatter.

Something hitting
a source of blood

producing a pattern on the wall

so that I could go back
and pull my strings.

Sir, my question is... was your
theory here that

Michael Peterson was standing
somewhere outside the stairway,

leaning in, and doing swings
like that, yes or no?

No. OK.

Let me ask you this -

if somebody was hitting a source
of blood right there

and they brought it back,
where would the cast-off go?

Again, there is many
variables on that also.

If the weapon were swung
in not a full roundhouse swing,

there probably wouldn't be
a cast off.

If the weapon had been cleaned
in between swings,

there wouldn't be a cast off.

Let me stop you there.

In other words, if somebody was
beating somebody to death

and they hit them once,

then they took a towel and wiped
down the weapon...

CHUCKLING

..and then brought it back,
then there wouldn't be cast off.

That's correct.
Got you.

Given the number of the amount
of blood in that stairway

and spatter getting on shorts...

You had spatter even on your
white protective suit,

I think we saw a picture of that
yesterday, right?

On one of the experiments, yes.

It would have been at least useful

to see if there were
any spatters on the shirt.

That's correct.

Your expertise indicates
that you just couldn't do that

because it was dark blue, right?

Well, yes, that is correct.

Blood stain pattern analysis
is a visual examination.

Had there, you know... I would have
looked for them, or whatever,

to be cautious, or whatever.

If I can't really see it,

then I don't consider it for blood
stain spatter analysis.

OK, well, of course,
you're aware, are you not,

that there are other things
you can do,

non-destructive things
you can do,

to enhance your ability to see
spatter on a blue shirt, right?

Um, no.

Well, you've read Mr Epstein's
report, have you not? Yes, I have.

Does he not indicate further testing
of the shirt

by alternate light sources,

chemical or photographic techniques
may be warranted

to further categorise -
characterise - this blood stain.

That is correct.

So let me ask you
the question again.

There are techniques available -
to people who are trained

in this field,
who are experts in this field -

to enhance one's ability to see
spatter on a blue shirt, correct?

Eh, some people do use those,
that's correct.

Actually, after that report came and
suggested that we might do that,

then that shirt was taken to
the laboratory and somebody who...

We were there, somebody was there,
Suzi Barker,

who had experience with that,
more experience than I had.

We took a look at that.

We didn't find anything with that,

but it really doesn't go
any more to that.

I didn't see blood spatter on it,
so that's what I reported.

Well, hold on a second.

Did you write a report
about that lumalite test?

Eh... Yes, I think so, yes.

You did? Yes. Did you give it to
the district attorney?

Yes. May we approach, Your Honour?

That's big.
That's really fucking big.

That's really big.

The fact that they ran a lumalite
and didn't find anything.

You know, in some jurisdictions,
they'd strike his testimony.

I know that, but still...

What's most amazing about
the experiment is that he admits

he struck a location that didn't
exist with a random amount of force

and a random amount of blood to try
to produce the stain. Right.

So he knows he can produce
that stain in a scenario that

he knows did not exist at the scene.
Right.

That's exactly right.
Make a note of that for closing.

You know that under
the Constitution,

a defendant is entitled
to any evidence that may tend

to exculpate him, you're aware of
that, are you not? Yes, I am.

And that the district
attorney is under

a constitutional obligation to turn
over such evidence to the defendant,

you're aware of that? Yes, I am.

Did you provide a copy of this
report to the district attorney

so that he could give it to us?

As far as I remember, I did.

Well, how do you generally deliver
reports to the DA?

As soon as their copies come to me,
then I make a hand delivery of them.

So you would have
hand-delivered this?

Yes. To Mr Hardin? Yes.

Do you recall having a conversation
with him

about handing him this report?

No, I don't.

Or Miss Black? No, I don't.

You're certainly not suggesting that
if they got this report

they wouldn't have turned
it over to me.

I'm making no suggestion.

You recall telling them
that there were

no spatters that you could see on
Michael Peterson's shirt?

I don't.

Did you think they just didn't
need to know that?

My answer was
I don't recall telling him.

OK.

INDISTINCT CHATTER

Yes, sir.

All right, members of the jury,
we'll take our afternoon recess.

Remember the instructions
I've given you throughout the...

He's fucking chopped liver.

The other thing that we saw today
that was pretty remarkable

was a report prepared
by the SBI agent Mr Deaver

in which he was supposed to be
checking using a lumalite,

I think it's called,

to check for blood spatter evidence
on Michael Peterson's shirt.

He prepared, it turns out,
a report on that work that he did,

but that report had not
come forward.

My question is were there
any blood transfers or smears

or was that shirt totally clean?
That is unclear,

although the evidence today seems
to suggest that there was nothing.

It seems to me he changed shirts.

I wonder if it wasn't another shirt
as well, but that hasn't yet...

I think we're going to pursue that
some more tomorrow in court, but...

Sometimes I think they're watching
a different trial.

HOME VIDEO PLAYS

Oh!

Um, I'm looking for the poker.

To make sure I marked down every
time that a fireplace was shown.

It's so frustrating to sit there in
court and know the answers to things

that Jim Hardin is, "Ooh, this,"
or "Ooh, there's blood there.

"Ooh, this", when you've lived it
every day of your life and

you know exactly why it's there
and you can't say anything.

You know, you have to just wait
for the lawyers to get it in,

and then it's not even considered
fact because it's just hearsay.

It's so frustrating.

I've been filming since 1994,
I guess.

Christmas in 1994,
I've been filming our family,

and so anything that can help,
I'm going to help.

In the picture that the DA has,
it's lying horizontally,

maybe, like, there.

It's kind of cut off.
Clayton is standing here.

He's a freshman in college at Duke,

and Wilbur is a puppy
and he's sitting right there

where Wilbur is now, but this is
many years later, in 1999,

and there's
no blow poke to be seen, so...

I don't even remember the blow poke

being there, except when we first
moved in the house.

So they're kind of stupid
for using that.

This whole trial is pretty
pointless, if you ask me.

'Mom, it's cute!

'Mom!'

Dr Radisch, do you have an opinion
as to how these various injuries

on Miss Peterson's face
would have occurred?

Yes.
What is that opinion?

The injuries, for instance
of the right eyelid, the injuries,

the abrasions, below the left eye,
I would not expect those to

occur as a result of falling against
a flat, firm surface.

They're in areas that are normally
protected

by bones that stick
out around them,

so they wouldn't have
contact with a flat surface.

On the head, there were seven areas
of laceration.

Again, these are...

Lacerations are tears.

In many of these lacerations,
they were actually full thickness,

or all the way through the scalp
to the underlying skull.

It's not been pulled away,
but at the autopsy,

we could actually pull these pieces
of tissues up as a flap,

or this piece of tissue,
for instance,

in this particular wound,
pulled up as a flap.

Now, with respect to
the cumulative injuries,

do you have an opinion
as to whether they collectively

are consistent with
a fall down the steps? Yes, I do.

What is that opinion?

In my opinion, all the injuries
found on this body

are not consistent with
a fall down the stairs.

Let me ask you whether those are
consistent with having been

struck with something like what is
marked here as State's Exhibit 72?

Yeah...
Yes, in my opinion, they could be.

In looking at the nature
of the injuries that

Kathleen Peterson had suffered,

we decided that we were going to
go back at least ten years

and look at every beating death that
had occurred in North Carolina

and see what the injuries were,

because Kathleen Peterson had
no skull fracture,

she had no massive brain injuries,

indeed, she had virtually
no injuries to her brain at all.

She didn't even have
any bruising on the brain.

We went back and we looked at
in excess of 250 cases,

which were all the cases
involving beating deaths

in North Carolina
for the past decade.

There was not a single case
involving multiple blows

to the head where there was not
either skull fracture or massive

injuries to the brain, or both.

You didn't have that in this case.

Would it be fair to say that in
cases involving beatings

with blunt objects where someone
is really trying to kill somebody

that there are certain injuries
that one generally tends to see?

I don't really... I think you would
have to be more specific.

All right.

Can I approach?

I want to just put these up here.

Obviously you're not going to be
able read these all,

but I want you to just tell me
if they appear to you to be,

just from looking at them,

a collection of all the autopsies
involving blunt trauma to the head

in North Carolina from 1991 to 2003.

Objection.

She can respond however she wants
to respond. Overruled.

CHUCKLING FROM GALLERY

I don't really think I can give you
an accurate answer to your question.

All right. Not today.

LAUGHTER

Are you aware, Dr Radisch,

that out of the 257 cases
in North Carolina since 1991,

there is not a single case
where a person was beaten

with an object such as this,

whether it was metal
or wood or hollow or not,

not a single case documented where
a person was beaten

with an object like this in the head

where there was not skull factures
and massive brain injury?

Are you aware of that?

I don't know that because
I haven't reviewed them.

Of course, Kathleen Peterson
didn't have any skull fracture.

No, she didn't.

Or any contusion on the brain.
No. Or any oedema. No.

And she didn't have any broken
bones in her hands. No.

Or her ribs. No.

And are you familiar with the case
up in Nova Scotia,

a similar set of circumstances,

where a wife was found at the foot
of the stairs and her husband,

Clayton Johnson, was charged with
murder? I've heard of it.

In that case,

the forensic experts called
by the prosecution at trial

testified under oath that they could
determine that the injuries

were inconsistent with a fall and
had to be from a beating,

isn't that right?

I don't know details of the case,
I don't know what the injuries were.

Well, do you know that after serving
some number of years in prison,

a number of forensic pathologists

and people who study injury
biomechanics

and various other experts
were put together

by the government of Canada
to look into that case?

I know that it was reviewed
and that a different decision,

or different determination,
was made.

And what was determined
was that the injuries

that the initial State's
forensic pathologist testified

you would not expect from a fall

in fact had come from a fall.

Right?

Yes.

That's all I have.
Thank you, Doctor.