All language subtitles for The Staircase - Chapter 6 - The Prosecutions Revenge

Let me show you what is marked
as States Exhibit 72,

and ask whether you can
identify that for me, please?

This is my blow poke.

You blow through it.

OK. And...

did you also purchase others
that were similar to it? Yes, I did.

In Christmas of 1984,

I so enjoyed having my blow poke,

it was so useful and handy,

I decided to give
it to family members,

and I gave one to my brother,

I gave to my sister Kathleen,

and I also gave one to my mother.

And, with respect
to each of those items,

was it identical to what is marked
here as States Exhibit 72?

Yes, they were.

With respect to this item,
did you have the occasion to see it

in her home at various times
when you visited?

Yes, I saw it in every home she
lived in whenever I visited. OK.

Now, Miss Zamperini, did you ever
say to the police that you

only saw the relationship between
Michael and Kathleen as being

a "truly, loving,
respectful marriage"?

I wrote that in a statement,
dated January 10th.

At that time I felt that.
I no longer do.

But you did state that the only
relationship you saw between

Michael and Kathleen was as a
"truly loving, respectful marriage".

Right? Those were your words.

They weren't my words,
it's what I wrote.

I didn't verbalise it,
if that's what you are getting at.

Well, they are your words
in your statement.

At that moment in time,
that's what I wrote.

That's all I have, thank you ma'am.

Mr Rudolf asked you whether,
at some point, you had

indicated to police that
Michael and Kathleen

had a "truly loving
and respectful relationship".

At that time I felt that way.

I was not aware of all the other
secrets that came out later,

not at all. So...

I object to that, Your Honour.
Overruled.

When I wrote that statement barely
a month after my sister's death,

I was totally unaware of
private aspects of his life.

I had no idea.

Do you still feel that way?
That there was a "truly, loving,

"respectful relationship"
between them?

Sitting here today, I have
no idea who Michael Peterson is.

None whatsoever.
He is who he held himself out to be.

And who he has turned out to be.
No, I have no idea who he is.

'10.17am.'

'Hello, Mr Rudolf.
This is Brent Wolgamott.

'I'm the alleged male escort
that is being talked about

'the last couple of days
in the papers and on TV.

'If you could give
me a call back to talk to me, OK.

'Believe me, I am on nobody's side.

'I'm not on the prosecution's side,
I'm not...

'I'm trying to stay out of it.
Call me back please. Bye.'

'End of message.'

Hello, Michael, how are you?
'OK, Sir.'

So, yesterday morning I went to
Raleigh and met with Brad.

'Brad? Oh, Brad! OK.'

Soldier top. 'Yes.' Yes. 'OK.'

Brad is very freaked out.

'I bet to hell he is.'

What he's hoping is that
we can convince...

He wants us to try to convince
the DA not to call him.

I said that's unlikely,

but it may be that the judge
will find that it's not relevant,

and I think, you know, he's not
going to hurt us in any way.

The other issue is that other
e-mail exchange in late November.

You know which
one I'm talking about?

'I would really have to go back
and refresh my memory.' OK.

'I've never met that guy.'
That's... I just want to make sure.

'Absolutely not.' OK. 'Absolutely
100% not. No, no.' OK. 'No, no, no.'

OK, so whatever e-mail exchange
there was in November did not

lead to any kind of personal
meeting. 'No, absolutely not.' OK.

I mean, you understand that if it
happened and I know about it,

I can deal with it.

'I haven't lied to you
about one single thing

'because I know you get blindsided
and it would just destroy me,

'and I'm not going to take that
risk. I want you to know that.'

I think I know that. OK. I mean,
I'm just asking the question.

'I understand that.

'I think I've been honest
with you from day one,

'since you met me in the jail.'

I didn't meet you in the jail,
I met you before you went to jail.

'Well, I mean...
Right, that's correct.

'You didn't keep me out of jail,
by the way!' Right, that's right.

I'm sorry, Michael.

I'm not even that concerned
with the bisexuality

as a general proposition.

What I'm concerned about are some
of the e-mails that are just...

They are going to turn
people off to Mike.

They are completely
irrelevant to the case,

but they are not irrelevant
to who Mike is,

and whether a jury's going to be

willing to believe
the worst about him.

I would very much like
to keep this stuff out.

It seems to me that this is really
going to tank some of the jurors'

views of Mike,
so the question really is,

what increases the likelihood
of winning the motion?

Well, clearly there's
a distinction between the Vive guys

from 11 years ago and the e-mail.

There are distinctions, and I
think we can make that distinction.

The easy argument that people had
sex with him before his marriage

is just totally irrelevant. Right.

We don't need to spend time on that.

If those were women,
it would be laughable. That...

The pornography and the, you know,
fantasy or escort stuff,

isn't really related to infidelity.

Yes, and I think your argument about
sort of taking out the gay stuff

and making it heterosexual,
is exactly right.

Yes, if they're smart
they do a couple of things.

One is they say,
"Well, in assessing the motive,

"you assess how much he loves her."
I mean, somebody...

A motive is more believable

if you aren't that committed
to your wife, than if you are.

OK, but these e-mails
don't show lack of commitment.

I think their positions...

Devil's advocate is, anybody who
is willing to spend money for sex

you know, during their marriage,

a jury could decide that shows a
lack of commitment to the marriage.

So you're telling me that if a man
contacts a prostitute,

never has sex with her,
just contemplates it,

that that indicates a lack
of commitment to the marriage?

I think a judge could find that
a jury could make that conclusion.

Such a lack of commitment that
it's relevant to a murder charge?

If one were to think about this,
if those were women,

if Mr Peterson's only sexual
orientation was heterosexual,

and the state had located
two prior girlfriends that he had

had some physical relationship
with before his marriage,

I don't think any court
would think there's any relevance.

It would be ridiculous to suggest
that that somehow reflects

upon the state of your marriage
to the extent that it would be

relevant to whether you would
commit a murder years later.

So, the only question then,

is whether adding the layer
that this was sex with other men

somehow increases the relevance
to the point

that this court should allow
a jury to hear that testimony.

I think it's clear that adding
the layer of sexual orientation

decreases its admissibility,
as opposed to increasing it,

because if even only one juror
starts looking at Mr Peterson

differently, not because
they think there is a connection

to what happened to Kathleen,

but they look at him and say,
"God, this guy's gay!"

If even one juror does that,

Mr Peterson has been denied
a fair trial.

Obviously there are two main grounds
where all these items,

or most of these items are relevant,
obviously.

Number one it goes to motive.

It does go to motive, as to why
this act may have been committed.

And number two, it goes specifically
to rebut some issues that

were raised in the defendant's
opening statement,

information about the idyllic
relationship that this couple had.

Well, this does not jive
with that kind of statement.

Why doesn't it jive?

If it's an idyllic relationship,
then why is he e-mailing

somebody else to meet for sexual
relations outside marriage?

You know, you're talking about
a potential love triangle type

of thing here, and clearly,
that's a motive for murder.

If it's not a motive for murder,
then the entire soap industry dies

because that's what they base
all their stories on. Um...

That'd be OK! Yeah!

You're talking specifically about
e-mails with a person that

has been identified as Brad.
Is that correct? Yes, sir.

Now, Mr Maher says

there's no evidence that they had
relations or that they actually met.

I don't see anywhere in the law,

either in the rules
or in the case law

that says they actually had to meet
for this to be a motive for murder.

The bottom line is, he is looking
for this outside the marriage.

All this stuff is on that computer.

She could easily have found out
that night what was going on.

Clearly, I think a motive
for murder.

All right, counsel. Mr Maher, I
agree with the States presentation.

The court is going to find that this
evidence proffered by the state

is relevant.

It goes to the issue of motive,

and it also goes to attack
the idyllic marriage

that the defendant has set forth
though his counsel

in his opening statement.

State your name, please. Brent
Wolgamott. How old are you, sir?

I'm 28, ma'am. All right. Tell us,
back in 2001, where were you living?

I was living in Fayetteville,
North Carolina. Doing what?

I was an active duty soldier
in the United States Army.

I did live off post though.

During this time period back
in 2001, did you have a website?

My image and information about
me was on a website, yes.

A website, all right. And what was
the purpose of that website?

It was a male for male
escort review site. OK.

Tell us, please, when you say
a "male for male escort site",

what types of services
did you perform?

Basically it's companionship
for other males of legal age.

All right.

And did that involve sexual
activities? Sometimes it does. OK.

What types
of sexual activities, sir?

Oh, just about anything
under the sun.

I mean, I didn't know how much
exactly the court wants

me to go into detail, but...

The court just wants you to answer
the questions. That's my answer.

Just about anything under the sun?
Yes, ma'am. OK.

Safely. Safely, I might add.

Now, do you remember
when you were contacted

by a person with the name MP Ryder?
Yes, ma'am.

Approximately when would
that have been?

I believe it was in August 2001.

Did you discuss anything,

other than just trying
to get to know each other?

It was basically the same as many
other clients who contact me.

They want to be safe,

so they want to get to know
me to make sure I'm a... straight...

A "straight" guy.
OK, what does that mean?

Well, I'm not a gangster,
somebody who's going to rob them.

I'm a clean cut professional

who they're going
to have a good time with.

Look at 170a.

Do you recognise that?

Yes, I'm the man in the middle. OK.

And do you know how this photograph
might have come into

Mr Peterson's possession?

I would have had to send it to him.
OK.

During the course of your
conversations with Mr Peterson,

whether it be by phone
or by computer,

did he ever mention his wife?

I believe he did, yes, ma'am.

Right now, did you have any type
of communication about how it

was you were going to hook up
together without his wife knowing?

I object to that. Or whether
his wife would know? Overruled.

I don't remember any discussions
about whether his wife would

or would not know.

It may have been in e-mails,
but I do not recall that.

We were to hook up, I believe,
on September 5, 2001.

Tell us, please, did you actually
discuss what you were going to do

when you were to get together
on September 5th, 2001? Yes, ma'am.

And what were y'all planning
on doing? Having sex.

What type of sex, sir? Do you know?

Can I say it, I guess. Anal sex.

Did you get together with him on
September 5, 2001? No, ma'am.

Well, what happened?

The only reason I was coming up
to Durham was because I was

leaving on a flight the next morning
to Palm Springs, on September 6th.

I'd had a very long day and when
I got up there that night,

I just said, you know what?
I'll talk to him when I come back.

I'm just tired and I want to go
to Palm Springs so I didn't go.

Was that an unusual occurrence
for you to have,

or plan to have sexual relations
with married men? To the contrary.

Married men are in the majority
of most of the clients that I saw

when I was a escort.

With regard to the kind of man
that you tended to have escort

relationships with,

can you give us some indication
of their professions, for example?

Sure.

Usually they are professionals
because my fees were quite high.

I saw doctors, attorneys...

One judge.

LAUGHTER

It was not this judge.

I think we can stipulate to that.

Is...? Is it...?

Is it fair to say that the men
who you would see were bisexual

as opposed to being homosexual?

In my opinion, I would go so far
as to even say

that they were
predominantly straight,

with minor homosexual tendencies.

All right. And did a number
of the married men

who you had sexual relations with

have wives who knew
they were bisexual?

Most of them did,
from my experience.

In your experience,
was it unusual for a wife

married to a bisexual man
to know that he was bisexual?

Not at all. Did Michael Peterson
ever do or say anything,

either on the phone or in an e-mail,

that indicated he was not in love
with Kathleen Peterson?

To the contrary - in his e-mails,
unlike most of my clients,

he indicated that he had
a great relationship.

Most clients don't want to say
anything about their relationship.

He indicated he had
a warm relationship with his wife

and nothing would ever destroy that.

Sir, do you know anything about
the death of Kathleen Peterson?

I know diddly. Diddly.

"Brad, we talked on the phone
yesterday and I checked out

"the website you gave me."

"I would like to get together
with you.

"Daytime is best for me.
I was in the Marines."

"Love to fuck, never been fucked,
and not sure I'm interested.

"I've never done escort, but used
to pay to fuck a super-macho guy

"who played lacrosse at NC State."

"Mike, I really enjoyed your e-mail.

"You sound very cool, and it's rare

"that I find a client
who wants..."

"Brad, obviously,
I'm not looking for a relationship,

"and neither are you."

"Mike, I am coming up there
Wednesday night,

"because I have to be on
a plane at 6am.

"You got a big dick, guy?
Just wondering."

"Brad, evenings are not great
for me, anyway.

"I'm married, very happily married,
with a dynamite wife.

"Yes, I know, I know. I'm very bi,
and that's all there is to it."

'The question about the bisexuality,
I don't know,

'is that probative
or is that inflammatory?

'I tend to think the jury is
going to look at that...'

'Yeah, I think that what it does
is show the jury'

this was not a happy marriage -

in fact, it was far from
a happy marriage,

when you're attempting to pay
for sex with a hooker.

'So, this idyllic relationship
that Mr Rudolf portrayed

'is simply not true.'

But the good thing about
how disgusting the media is

is that when it's over, it's over.

Nobody cares.
There is a new story, yeah.

Yeah, there's a new story,
nobody cares any more.

New lies. Yeah, yeah, exactly.

I could commit a crime
and take the attention off you guys.

"Martha's best friend turns killer."

Just kidding.
Oh, my God.

Did you know...?

Hi!

Maybe my puppy shouldn't hear this,
either.

Come on... come on.

Bye, Portia!

Were you shocked
that he was bisexual?

No, we already know.
Oh, you did? Well... yeah.

After Mom died, when Dad was in jail

and we were going for
the bond hearing,

Caitlin was going to talk,
so they were, like, worried,

because they'd found
all the pornography,

and so Rudolf was worried about,

like, Caitlin going up
into the stand

and being surprised at
the whole bisexuality thing.

And so... so they told us, you know?

And I remember Todd was the one,
he sat me down, he was like,

"Margaret, I just need to tell you,
you know, Dad's bisexual."

And I was like,
"Oh, OK, that's fine."

It was one of those things that he
was, like, "No, no, he's bisexual."

And I was like,
"OK, that makes sense.

"Like, is there anything else?

"Is there something more important
that you wanted to tell me?"

He's like,
"No, are you OK with that?"

I was like, "Yeah.
It doesn't matter. I don't care."

It was just one of those things
that...

I mean, we already knew
and... so what?

It was not a big deal. No. Yeah.

I don't...

Like, he's so strong.

You know, he's...
They're bringing everything,

like, the deepest, darkest secrets
of him out,

and... putting them on display
for the nation

and making a mockery of him, and...

Well, could you imagine?

They could take your whole life,
as of right now,

take everything you've ever done
out of context,

and blow it up there on
a huge poster

and bring in people to talk about it
and how the experts talk about it,

and... it's disgusting.

They can do that to anyone.
You can't judge someone

by what the media points out
as their shortcomings, you know?

You know what Craig Jarvis
from the NNO told me today?

He said when he was trying to figure
out the cost of the trial,

he got the impression that Michael
just pays a flat fee.

It's not by the hour.

We could ask our host that tonight,
if she knows how it works.

I don't know if it's just a flat fee
for just the trial part,

or a flat fee for
the whole murder case.

I don't see how they could do that,

because they didn't know they would
end up going to Germany twice.

I mean, talk about a...
I don't know, I'll have to...

..you know, unpredictable expense.

Cos I'm sure Michael didn't say,
"By the way, there's something

"that happened in Germany
you might have to defend me about."

"Oh, and by the way, I'm gay
and, oh, by the way,

"there's another dead woman",
and... yeah.

There's the cemetery.

Doing this for you, Kathleen.
Doing this for you.

Um... this is obviously
the headstone and, Lori,

you said she goes this way, right?

No. No. Her head is here
and her feet are there. OK.

So this is where she is and
that's it, but I'd kind of like...

Depending on what you suggest, a...

I don't know, what do you suggest?

What I can do is maybe draw up a
sketch

and give you an idea of what
the plannings would be.

You know, we're here right now,
but once the trial is over, I mean,

we'll be coming some,
but not all the time, to tend it.

The only thing I can share with you
is that my sister loved roses and...

But I don't know if you have a breed

that can, without a lot
of tending, make it.

There are some.
There is a variety called Carefree

that may not need as much spraying
and maintenance as the normal ones.

I don't know if it'd get enough sun
underneath this big oak tree...

That's kind of tough.

I don't know -
maybe we could do something...

Something there and then,
you know, like this, like a U-shape.

Some kind of thing...

I don't know if there are
any good perennials.

I was thinking of Bleeding Hearts,
but...

If we can agree on this,
how soon can you do it?

Probably within the next week or so.
It's not a huge job,

but I've got enough guys
that I could do that.

Well, I didn't want "Peterson"
on there,

but nobody would listen to me, so...

Well, what's done is done.

She was happy when she married him.

Mr Sachs.
Your Honour, obviously,

we believe that this evidence
is clearly relevant

and clearly should be admissible.

In a lot of ways,
even giving the defendant

the benefit of the doubt, and saying
he had nothing to do with this,

this evidence would still
be admissible

simply as relevant circumstantial
evidence.

Even if this was an accident
over in Germany, in 1985,

he has seen the scene and seen what
an accident may have looked like,

knowing what a model -

using it as a model,
or a blueprint, so to speak -

when this case is committed
now in 2001.

When you look at the similarities
between the two, they are striking.

Obviously the most striking thing
about it is that we have here now

this defendant who's involved
with a case where two women are

found at the bottom of the stairway,
dead.

There is large amounts
of blood present,

there is splatter high up on
the wall next to the stairway,

the blood is dry on the wall,
there are small spray patterns

of blood that are identified
on the wall.

Both of the victims, obviously,

are female and had close personal
relationships to the defendant.

The are both in their mid-40s
when this occurred.

They actually look alike -

the physical similarities between
the two are amazing.

They're both later determined
to be homicides,

after subsequent autopsy,
by blunt force trauma.

Scalp lacerations -
how coincidental is that?

That it is the same number of scalp
lacerations on each of them,

and both severe, down to the skull.

The presence of defensive
wounds on the bodies.

The defendant was the last person
to see them alive.

The defendant is on the scene
when the authorities arrive

each time and he reports,
both to authorities and to others -

to friends and people who come -

that each of these persons died
by falling down the stairs.

So, what we've got, here,
on the bottom line,

is the detectives who came to
the house saw nothing suspicious -

and this was before any clean-up.

Steve Lyons, the Army agent
who came to the house,

saw nothing suspicious.

The German doctor who came to
the house saw nothing suspicious.

There was no evidence
that Mrs Ratliff

had any personal relationship
with Michael Peterson

or anybody else that would
have provided a motive for murder

and there was no financial gain -

in fact, he ending up raising
her two children to adulthood,

the initial estate was worth
about 35,000,

including pine trees in Australia.

And from all of that, you have
a situation where, in essence,

there is no substantial evidence

from which a jury
could reasonably find

that Michael Peterson
was responsible

for the death of Elizabeth Ratliff.

Anything else? No, your Honour.

All right, then, thank you, Counsel.

The court does agree with the State,
Mr Sachs,

that the evidence of Mrs Ratliff's
death is admissible

under 402 and 404b.

State's motion is allowed.
The defendant's is denied.

The prosecutors are going to try
and tell this jury that

Michael Peterson was responsible
for that woman's death,

and was responsible
for Kathleen Peterson's death,

and they are going to say both women
died in a similar way,

at the bottom of the staircase.

Now, another note, ironic,
on the bottom of all this,

is that the two daughters that were
adopted by Michael Peterson

where the daughters
of Elizabeth Ratliff,

that woman that died
18 years ago in Germany.

They were raised
by Michael Peterson,

raised as his own daughters,
and they refer to him as Dad

and, as I told you before,
those two girls,

who are now grown-up and
in their 20s,

are supporting Michael Peterson.

So, while prosecutors,
on the one hand,

say Michael Peterson is responsible
for killing their biological mother

and for killing their stepmother,

who was helping to raise them,
they are saying, "No."

All right - any further evidence?

On the morning of November 25th,
did you go to Miss Ratliff's house?

Yes, I did.
And how did you arrive there?

I arrived by taxi.

So, after you actually put the key
in the door and opened the door,

what happened next?

I see all the lights are on
and I see this body lying there.

Did you see blood?

Oh, yes.

Where did you see blood?

All the stairway, up the stairway,
there was blood.

Liz was lying in a pool of blood.

Can you recall where, if anywhere,
you saw blood on her?

I don't remember - I'm sure I did
really look at her,

but I don't remember
if she was... where blood was on her.

It was just everywhere.
What next did you do?

I ran over to the Peterson house.
What happened?

I told Patty that something terrible
had happened, they have to come.

Did you see Michael Peterson
at that time?

As I was talking to Patty,
he came to the top of the stairs.

Was he dressed or not?
He was...

No, he wasn't dressed. He was in
his T-shirt and boxer shorts.

What next did you do?

Michael came running over with me.

What did you do? I ran upstairs
to see if the babies were OK.

And when you went there, what did
you find concerning the children?

The babies were still asleep.

So, what did you do?

I wanted to go in the toilet
and vomit.

All right. What happened next?

I was in the toilet and Michael
came upstairs and he is telling me

to get a sheet, to get a blanket,
and I said, "Why?"

He said he wanted to cover Liz up.

And he said she was dead.

And I said, "No, no, I felt her.
She's warm."

And he says,
"She's not warm, Barbara."

He took me by the arms and he said,
"She's not warm, she's dead.

"The warmth comes
from the floor heating."

What then did you do?

I walked in the door.

I saw Michael in the corner,

and he was standing like this.

And then I turned
and I looked at Patty,

and Patty was really slumped over,
staring into space.

She was really in bad shape.

What then do you do?

I asked what had happened
and I looked around.

There was a lot of blood
on the floor.

And I looked up the walls

and there was a lot of blood
on the walls.

Now, Liz was covered,
I couldn't see her.

There was a coat,
I think it was a coat, over her.

And I couldn't see even her head,
but her hair was, like,

down over her face, like this.

All right, now, you say you enquired
as to what had happened

and did anyone give you
any information at that time?

Michael said that
she had a brain aneurysm,

she had had this and that she must
have fallen down the stairs.

What is the next thing that
you remember happening?

I saw a bloody footprint down
the bottom of the stairs and I said,

"This is a crime scene and
somebody needs to investigate it,

"so please don't walk
up the stairs."

Did anybody make any comment
to what you had said?

Barbara said, "That's my footprint,
that's when I went to get Martha,

"Martha baby and Gigi,
and I carried them out."

So, what happened then?

Well, there was a lot of commotion.

Barbara was hysterical,
the nanny was hysterical,

she was shaking, visibly shaking.

She was very loud, crying, sobbing,

I think I was crying and sobbing,
I think...

I think a lot of people
were crying and sobbing.

While you were there in her home,
did you notice any blood?

There was blood all the way
down the wall

that is adjacent to the staircase.

There's blood over on the wall,
on the other side of the foyer,

and there was blood on a little,

this side of the wall
over on the foyer too.

While the investigators were there,
was the blood still on the wall?

The blood was there until
we moved Liz into the side bedroom.

And who was cleaning the blood?

In my memory I am sure that Tom and
I cleaned the blood off the walls.

And over what period of time
did you clean?

It seems like
we cleaned blood most of the day.

You know, Rosemary,
I've said many, many times,

there is no coincidence in criminal
law and I'm just wondering

how Todd and the other two Ratliff
girls don't see these similarities.

Maybe they don't want to see
the similarities, Rosemary.

I believe they don't want
to see the similarities.

They can't believe that

the person they've known since

they were babies and that has raised
them, it just is not possible.

It happened to my sister in 1985

and the same thing happened
to Kathleen in 2001.

It was... Oh, boy, is she fucking...
..on purpose. They were murdered.

Rosemary... And I have seen
personally Michael Peterson's fury,

which is scary.

It really scared me into not
wanting to go down there again.

Two times in my whole life
I've seen that stupid woman

and she says I have
a terrible temper.

It's just awful.

Yeah, here it is.

And, Caitlin...

Yes, vicious temper.

Grr! Temper! Grr!

Grr!

SHE LAUGHS

PHONE RINGS

Shit.

HE CLEARS HIS THROAT

Hello?

Yeah.

Well, no, they're going to lose
the case for a lot of reasons, Mike.

Duh - I didn't do anything. Number
two, there's no murder weapon.

Number three, there's no motive.

Jesus!

Ah, OK.

Oh, you know what?
That's another one. Rosemary...

You know how many times I've seen
Rosemary in my whole life? Twice.

Once 15 years ago and then

one time she came down for
Margaret's graduation. That was it.

Yeah. Oh, yeah. He's hired, yeah.

Well, as I have always cautioned,
never underestimate anybody.

It's a good way to lose
football games and wars.

I don't know, I just, I found myself
a couple of times, like,

sitting up straighter in court when
people were talking about my dad

and I'll just,
I'll be really, like, indignant,

I'll just be like, "This is
my father you're talking about,

"you know, like I have a lot of
pride in him, this is our family

"you're talking about," and
the fact that I know he's innocent

and the fact that, like, hopefully
people can see it through me now,

people can see it in me
that he is innocent and...

I don't know, I think, I think that
helps, sometimes, to get through it.

You know the DA's trying to
say basically that our dad

killed our birth mother and our
mother, but where are we sitting?

We're sitting behind our dad.

Now, shortly before she died,

I think it was the Thursday of
the week before Thanksgiving,

you talked with Liz and she talked
about suffering severe headaches.

She came to my room about
three o'clock on that Thursday

and she was pale.

She looked bad and
she held her head like this

and she said... I asked her

what was wrong and she said she just
had the most severe headache

and that she did make an appointment
to go to the medical facility

and that she had an appointment on
Tuesday. The following week. Yes.

So she never actually got to see a
doctor about these severe headaches.

No.

Now, your husband, what was his rank
in the military at the time?

I believe he was
a major at that point.

I'm not sure if he was promoted.

He never went up to any
of the authorities and said,

"We're concerned that
this is a crime scene", did he?

No, because he was
very concerned about it and

he was waiting to see
what they would say.

His example to me was,

if I was flying a plane
and someone reported a fire on it,

would you trust me to
put out the fire?

Would you trust my expertise
to put out the fire?

And he trusted
their expertise that day.

OK, well, ma'am, if you were
on a plane and there was fire

and it continued to burn and
continued to burn and nobody

did anything, at some point you
would say something, wouldn't you?

I would be waiting for a day
that I could put the fire out

and I guess that's why I'm here
today, to help put the fire out.

And this is 18 years later. Yes.

They have telephones in Germany,
don't they? Yes, they do.

And you could have called
somebody the next day.

It's a scary thing to go
to the police and say,

"I think that
there's foul play here."

In fact, during all of 1985,
you didn't call anybody. No.

No, we've had to live with this
all these years.

The first time you actually ever
gave a statement about these events

to anybody in authority was
in the year 2002. That's correct.

And you actually wrote out
a statement to... Detective Holland?

Uh, yes.

OK, and this statement contained
all the significant memories

you had about how Elizabeth Ratliff
died and Michael Peterson's

involvement in that. Correct?

It contained every significant thing
that I could remember at that time

until I began to
remember more things.

OK, well, let's go through
what you could remember

when you wrote to Detective Holland.

Nowhere in this statement
did you say that Michael Peterson

said anything about
there being a cerebral haemorrhage

before the German police arrived.
Did you? No.

In fact, although you knew
this statement was about

Michael Peterson, an investigation
of Michael Peterson,

you didn't say anything about him
at all, did you? No.

Didn't even mention his name.
No, I didn't.

Didn't mention this bloody
footprint you now recall.

No.

You talk about the fact that
Miss O'Hara, now Miss Malagnino,

summoned you.
She was frantic at that point?

She was upset. "Come quick."

By the way, the girls, it says here
the two girls were still in bed?

Yes. That's Margaret and Martha.

They didn't stay there
the whole time?

No, Barbara had removed them.

I didn't remember that until later
when I saw the footprint.

When I remembered seeing
the bloody footprint on the stairs,

then I remembered that she had gone
upstairs and taken them away.

That was one of my flashbacks. So...

Flashbacks?
Have you been having flashbacks?

Flashbacks of the scenes
in short pictures.

Flashbacks come as short memories,
very short memories.

You arrived in Durham
a week or so ago?

Almost two weeks ago. OK.

And you've been in contact
with other witnesses?

I've seen other witnesses,
that's correct.

And just seeing people has
caused you to have flashbacks

of new memories that
you didn't have in March of 2002?

Hearing their voices
has brought back some memories.

The messages,
the images are very, very vivid.

Some of them are in colour.

The things you've been testifying
today that you didn't write

in March of 2002 are the result
of these flashbacks, correct?

A lot of memories came
before I even arrived here.

And those were also flashbacks?

Yes.

I don't know if this is...

I don't know if this is ours or
your mother's. Porcelain de Paris.

I don't know. I mean, it's been...

I have no idea.

Can I take one of
the pie plates to school?

Yeah. We own about ten of them.

I like the blue one better. Yeah, I
don't think this was your mother's.

That's too ugly to be your mother's.
I don't think that one is hers.

I believe...
Yeah, this is your mother's.

Because there used to be
a Rosenthal outlet...

..not far from where we lived.

And your mother would go and buy
an odd piece, you know,

seconds or every now and then
a piece of Rosenthal. This was one.

There are a couple of them,
but over the years

around half of them have been broken
or lost or something.

But literally anything... Oh,
this would be hers. Yeah. Anything.

This is a Rosenthal,
I'm sure it's Rosenthal.

Yeah, anything that says
Rosenthal... Is our birth mom's.

Is your mother's, yeah.
I was with her when she bought it.

Sometimes we'd go by a bunch of it,
so if you go through,

if it says Rosenthal, it's...

So we know what not to break.

GIRLS LAUGH

I hope I'm not breaking anything.
I'm just joking.

Yeah, one of your favourite things
to do after dinner would be

walk us around the house
and show us everything that
was going to be ours.

I mean, you always did that.
We always knew.

People are just ignorant,
that's all.

Oh, my God. Portia!

Baby, Portia! Where...

Portia, Portia!

Look, baby.

You know how everyone in Germany
is saying that they cleaned up

so much blood and didn't your dad
say there was no blood?

Well, there's a... What?

The CID agent who went,
who came after the scene,

he wrote a report
and it said that...

The only blood was under her head.

Yeah. Just where she was...
had hit her head. And so...

And so are they making that up?

I don't know. It's hard to tell.

I mean, maybe they did.
She was saying...

She had seven lacerations, they
had to clean up blood, right? Yeah.

And she had a bleeding disorder.
Right. Yeah.

Maybe there was more blood than
people want to remember but...

The bottom line is,
I just don't care.

Like, it happened 18 years ago and
our dad had nothing to do with it

and there's nothing
that they've said

that ties Dad to anything negative,
so it just doesn't make any sense.

It's just what you would think.
Yeah. It just pisses me off.

But it still feels like a big deal

because, I mean, saying that
there's that much blood,

it makes it similar to the...
to our stepmom, and so...

Not only our stepmom.
Well, I mean... To Mom.

To Mom, yeah. And...

I don't know.

Oh, my God.

Did you have the occasion to become
involved with the autopsy of

Elizabeth Ratliff?

Yes, I did.

Do you have an opinion as to
her cause of death? Yes, I do.

What is that opinion?

In my opinion the cause
of death of Mrs Ratliff

was blunt trauma of the head.

Do you also have an opinion as to
the manner of Mrs Ratliff's death?

In my opinion... Objection.

Overruled. In my opinion,

the manner of death in
Mrs Ratliff's case was homicide.

When I think about Elizabeth
Ratliff's death, the question

that strikes me as the most
important one is, when did she die?

And no-one has really
addressed that.

Deborah Radisch apparently hasn't
even thought about that issue.

But if she died at 11pm at night,

which is what the state
would have you believe,

we know as a matter of science that
by eight o'clock the next morning

when her body was found,

it would have substantial signs
of rigor mortis.

It would be stiff,
and people don't forget that.

When you move a body that's stiff,
you remember that.

You can't do a spinal tap
very easily

on a body that's in
full rigor mortis,

or even substantial rigor mortis,

so we know that
she wasn't in rigor mortis.

We know that she couldn't have died
at 11 o'clock at night.

Barbara Malagnino told us that her
body was still warm to the touch,

and so, the physical evidence
is much more consistent with

her having died
some time that morning

than when the state said she died,

late in the evening
the night before.

One of the things that forensic
pathologists sometimes do is

to determine a time of death.

Yes.

Rigor mortis, or "rye-gor" mortis,
is something that medical examiners

use to at least get an estimate
of time of death, right?

Yes, generally a rough estimate,
that would be correct.

And rule of thumb is

it develops pretty much
over about a 12-hour period,

give or take some time... Yes.

And it remains, and
when we're talking about rigor,

we're talking about stiffness
to the touch, right? Yes.

If somebody is found on a step
in a particular position

and rigor has started,
you take them off the step,

they're still going to be in
that position. That's correct.

And so for example, if someone died
at 11pm, one would expect

by eight o'clock or nine o'clock
or ten o'clock the next morning,

certainly by 11 o'clock
the next morning,

to see some
significant rigor, right?

Yes.

And do you know whether or not

anyone who was with Elizabeth
Ratliff's body that morning

from 8am till, say, 12 noon when her
body was moved into the next room,

do you know whether anyone reported
any kind of rigor?

No, I don't know if
anyone made that observation.

And you know, do you not,
that Michael Peterson was at home

with his then wife Patty when
Elizabeth Ratliff's body was found?

Are you aware of that?

No, I don't know.

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

The state of North Carolina does not
intend to call additional witnesses

and with that, the state
of North Carolina would

rest its case in chief at this time.

All right, Mr Rudolf. Will there
be evidence for the defendant?

I'm not sure, Your Honour.

We'll make a decision about that
tonight and if there is evidence,

we'll certainly be prepared
to go forward on Monday morning.

We will see you
Monday morning at 9:30.