YT YouTube2Text

YouTube2Text → Transcripts → David Rudolph of The Staircase presents explosive new theory about accused murderer Michael Peterson

David Rudolph of The Staircase presents explosive new theory about accused murderer Michael Peterson — Transcript

by NCAVF · 17,476 words · 2,456 segments · language en · Watch on YouTube

Open in transcriber Summarize with AI Download SRT/VTT

Full transcript

0:03ladies and gentlemen my name is Daniel
0:06firuzan I'm the founder of the Westside
0:08Bar Association it is nice to see so
0:10many excited faces in the audience we
0:17are exceptionally excited tonight
0:19because the event that we're gonna put
0:21on here and the quality of event that
0:23were gonna put on here in my opinion is
0:25second to none before we go into that I
0:27just want to say some general things
0:29about the WBA some administrative stuff
0:31that if you've been to any of our
0:33previous events you've probably heard me
0:34say this before can I just get a show of
0:36hands how many people are in the WBA
0:38Facebook group all right it's a decent
0:42we'll get that number up next time no
0:44worries
0:44so why join the WBA Facebook group very
0:48simple a it's free be let's not kid
0:51ourselves we're all already addicted to
0:53Facebook so it's very nice to have a Bar
0:56Association accessible via Facebook and
0:59here's a beautiful thing ladies and
1:00gentlemen if you're looking for a job if
1:03you're looking for case referrals or hey
1:05maybe you have a question about the CCP
1:07Civil Procedure Criminal Procedure
1:08federal procedure whatever it might be
1:10people actually post questions in the WB
1:13a Facebook group and they get answered
1:15again for free the other beautiful part
1:18about the Facebook group is that you are
1:20the first to know about any updates any
1:23events that we're throwing and I'll tell
1:24you one other thing that we do sometimes
1:26when we are coming up with our next
1:28events will actually put up a poll in
1:30the WB a Facebook group and you guys get
1:33to vote you guys get to vote on who's
1:35gonna be here you guys get to vote on
1:37the next events and I promise you no one
1:39else is doing that so when you get home
1:41tonight or tomorrow take a look at the
1:43WB a Facebook group and join if you're
1:46old school and you prefer email you can
1:49just go to our website and sign up for
1:51our listserv there we won't spam you
1:53will only tell you about upcoming events
1:56so thank you all so much for being here
1:58I want to be very brief I want to give
1:59the microphone over to mr. Lou Shapiro
2:01who put this panel together and we want
2:04to get the party started I hope you guys
2:05are ready
2:07[Applause]
2:15I'm also stalling for time for the rest
2:17of the people at the cash bar can get in
2:19here
2:21welcome you're not here to hear from me
2:24so I'll be very quick just a few
2:28recognitions first of all I want to
2:31thank the Westside Bar Association Board
2:33they helped to put this together it was
2:35not just me this was a team effort thank
2:38you to the volunteers who are helping
2:39tonight with the seating in the back we
2:41appreciate that we have a star panel
2:44here this evening
2:45right as we have and I'll just start
2:47from the far far left we have if she may
2:50rise Lina win a four-time Emmy Award
2:53winner
2:54newscaster from channel 9 really
2:58upgrading our image we appreciate that
3:00Elena thank you for being here tonight
3:02we also have a co-moderating with Lena
3:05will be Dan fruisé and the president of
3:07the Westside bar he just heard so he'll
3:09be helping out and then we have rena
3:13durant
3:14deputy district attorney in department
3:1630 all the professor al kaba wonsan wits
3:22UCLA law thank you for being here
3:24tonight
3:24[Applause]
3:37I'll probably I'm probably gonna
3:38mispronounce the name anyways but right
3:44dr. Ruby Javed gaffar LA County
3:47coroner's office who is accompanied by
3:54dr. o de Lupo and yes the owl is here
4:01but it's it's in the back to make sure
4:04you come back and stay until the end
4:08parking validation I recommend if you
4:11get a drink downstairs at the bar it's
4:13like half-price on the valet so I'm not
4:15encouraging drinking and driving it
4:17could be a seltzer even so just know
4:19about that finally a few more
4:25acknowledgments we have some really
4:26really relevant newsworthy people that
4:30are part of Los Angeles we have to
4:32recognize him tonight we have Gigi
4:33Gracia here from Fox you could please
4:36stand reporter for many years you would
4:38recognize her we have Shannon Ferran
4:44from the Gary and Shannon show on KFI
4:46she's an all blue please stand where are
4:49you are you hiding doesn't want to she
4:51already got her picture so she left
4:53right we have Frank motek from KNX 1070
4:59here tonight you hear him on you'll hear
5:02him on your way home talking about the
5:03event thanks for being here and finally
5:06Marybeth McDade who is covering the
5:07event for KTLA so you probably will all
5:10see yourselves on television tonight so
5:12you're gonna flat for yourselves a
5:17staircase why are we here tonight you
5:24know you watch an episode or two and it
5:27does play on you you start thinking did
5:29he do it didn't he do it I'm not sure it
5:31takes you through this rollercoaster
5:33ride but like in any production there's
5:36always a hero and I think we all would
5:40agree in this room that the hero is not
5:43necessarily Michael Peterson the
5:45defendant the case who's walking as a
5:48free man today
5:50and the hero is also not the Durham
5:52County District Attorney's Office who
5:54originally got a conviction the hero of
5:58this story in that show was sitting to
6:00my right and that is David Rudolph
6:01that's the hero David you've inspired us
6:11and we're just so happy on your world
6:15tour we are your one stop here please
6:18continue to inspire us and we hope for a
6:20staircase season - David Rudolph thanks
6:29Luke and thank all of you for coming is
6:31amazing turnout here and I really
6:35appreciate it
6:36how many folks in the audience are
6:39public defenders i I started as a public
6:44defender in the South Bronx too many
6:47years ago to reveal and then I went to
6:51the federal defender office in Brooklyn
6:52how many of you are private criminal
6:55defense lawyers all right and I take it
6:59the rest of you are still lawyers but
7:01you don't do anything interesting is
7:02that right so you know Lou asked me to
7:12start off tonight to just sort of get
7:16things rolling and it seemed to me that
7:20probably what most lawyers are
7:23interested in is why did I agree to do
7:28this and and how did I protect
7:33attorney-client privilege and why would
7:36I allow my client to be filmed in all
7:40these situations and so I thought it
7:44might be useful since it those the
7:46answers to those questions don't appear
7:48in the in the staircase to talk some
7:51about that just to start off this
7:52evening and sort of give you all a
7:54little bit of inside baseball about how
7:57that all came to be so the story
8:01actually starts
8:03with another trial that I did it was the
8:07Rae Carruth trial Rae Carruth was a
8:09North Carolina Panther football player
8:12who in 1999 was charged with capital
8:18murder arising out of the shooting death
8:21of his pregnant girlfriend sharika Adams
8:25and that case got an enormous amount of
8:28publicity because Ray was a active NFL
8:32player he had actually been the the
8:34leading first-year receiver in the NFL
8:37the year before he was a rising star and
8:42he was charged with capital murder I
8:45mean he there he went from the practice
8:47field to the to the prison you know to
8:50the jail and so that got enormous press
8:52and I was fortunate enough to represent
8:57Ray represented him for three months he
9:00was charged with murder it was a
9:03allegedly a murder for hire he was
9:06charged with conspiracy and various
9:09other lesser offenses and after three
9:11months the jury acquitted him of the
9:15murder but in a verdict that I'm not
9:18quite sure I understand convicted him of
9:20conspiracy to commit murder and the the
9:26benefit of that for Ray obviously was
9:28that instead of facing the death penalty
9:31he got sentenced to 18 to 24 years in
9:34prison for the conspiracy and he
9:36actually is getting out in about two
9:39weeks so and I won't get into the
9:44details of that case but as a result of
9:47that case that was covered by court TV
9:50which used to exist some of you may
9:54remember that and it got nationwide
9:58coverage and at the same time that that
10:02was going on there was a little notice
10:05case in Florida in Jacksonville Florida
10:08and there was this small team of French
10:12documentary filmmakers who had found
10:16case the defendant was represented by a
10:19public defender and they covered the
10:24case and they made a documentary about
10:26the defense of this case it was a murder
10:29case as a poor black defendant charged
10:33with murdering a white visitor to
10:38Florida and the public defender got an
10:43acquittal despite a confession and an
10:46eyewitness identification and the
10:51filmmakers made a film called murder on
10:53a Sunday morning which if you haven't
10:55seen you should see it won the Academy
10:58Award for Best Documentary in 2002 I
11:02believe so they were finishing that up
11:05about the time that I was finishing up
11:07the Carruth case and they were searching
11:11for another project and I know there's
11:14been a lot of talk on the internet and
11:16Twitter and all these things about
11:18reddit about how Michael hired these
11:20people the nothing could be further from
11:23the truth the French film company the
11:28documentarians reached out to various
11:31stringers and one of the persons they
11:33reached out to was a woman by the name
11:34of Mary Beth Stevenson I think was her
11:36name I think she was based out here in
11:39LA and was covering the things for Court
11:42TV and she's just suggested that they
11:44call me to see if I had anything going
11:46on and as luck would have it about a
11:50month or two earlier I had started
11:53representing Michael Peterson in in this
11:55case so they contacted me and I I wasn't
12:00terribly eager to do this to be honest
12:05you know I never let my clients talk to
12:08the media before trial we had turned
12:11down all kinds of interviews with 20/20
12:14and you know all those sorts of news
12:16shows and you know when they approached
12:20us it was not about an immediate
12:22interview was about a documentary which
12:24a little bit different so we agreed to
12:28meet with them
12:29Michael and I and my investigator and
12:35Michael became very enamored of the idea
12:41of having this Academy award-winning
12:45French film crew filming the entire
12:50thing in Durham and and not because of
12:53any vanity because he was convinced that
12:56he would not get a fair trial in Durham
13:00he had spent a lot of time writing
13:03columns for the local newspaper and the
13:06columns attacked the local police and
13:09the columns attacked the local DA and
13:13the columns attacked the local
13:15government and they all hated him I mean
13:20they weren't gentle columns they were
13:22they were very acerbic sharp columns and
13:28so he was convinced that as a result of
13:31that they were going to be out to get
13:34him and he just thought having this
13:38Academy award-winning award-winning
13:40winning film crew there would deter some
13:45of that you know that might it might
13:47keep the playing field a little bit more
13:49level and and I couldn't argue with that
13:54I understood it but I didn't really
13:57think that it was gonna be all that
13:58unfair I knew the judge I had known the
14:01judge for years I had tried cases in
14:05Durham and Durham was certainly not a
14:09the most conservative place in North
14:11Carolina by a long shot
14:14so I I wasn't convinced that we we
14:17needed that to level any playing field
14:19and I was also very concerned about the
14:22attorney-client privilege obviously and
14:27so when I met with the filmmakers
14:29Michael sort of agreed right away that
14:33he was willing to do it and I was you
14:35know I said well hold on you know we
14:38need to talk some more
14:40and I told them that that I'd be willing
14:43to do it and I'll tell you in a minute
14:44why I was willing to do it but I told
14:47them that there were going to be certain
14:48conditions before I agreed to do it one
14:53condition was that they would agree that
14:56at least before the trial anything
14:58they'd film before the trial was being
15:01done to document it for my purposes so
15:05that in essence when they were filming
15:08me meeting with Michael or an expert
15:10they were doing that as my agent if you
15:15will
15:15I wasn't controlling what they filmed
15:17but I wanted that to be covered by the
15:21attorney-client privilege to the extent
15:23I could create that that protection so
15:28that was condition number one condition
15:31number two was that they would have to
15:34send the footage that they took every
15:38day that they were filming back to
15:40France that night and the reason for
15:44that was that I was worried that the DA
15:47would try to subpoena it and I wanted
15:53him to have to go speak French in order
15:56to get the the film and indeed as it
16:01turned out there was one witness who we
16:04interviewed and and the film crew filmed
16:08it and at some point the DA reached out
16:11to the judge and said that he he wanted
16:15to try to subpoena that and the judge
16:16called me and you know I I called the
16:19film makers and and they called the
16:21judge and explain to the judge that the
16:24film that the DA wanted was actually in
16:26Paris and you know they weren't quite
16:30sure how the DA was gonna get that but
16:32if he wanted to get it and he was gonna
16:34need to fly over there and make his
16:36argument so that was condition number
16:40two condition number three was that they
16:45would not show any footage publicly
16:49until all appeals and all trials and
16:53appeals had been
16:54exhausted so that was condition number
16:57three and condition number four and I'm
17:00not sure any American film crew would
17:03have agreed I'm sure the the TV people
17:07the journalists in the room are shaking
17:09their heads already about about how I
17:12got this agreement but it went even
17:16further than that because they also
17:20agreed that before they filmed it before
17:23they showed anything I would be
17:25permitted to see it and if I had any
17:29concerns about whether what was in the
17:33film might prejudice Michael in a
17:35subsequent trial assuming we had lost
17:38that they would agree to discuss that
17:42with me and take my views into
17:44consideration in deciding whether to
17:47keep that particular scene in the final
17:50episodes and as I said no no American
17:57film crew would ever agree to those
17:59conditions so this film I don't think is
18:02ever going to be made again I don't
18:03think you're ever going to see at least
18:06I hope you don't without those
18:08conditions being met another lawyer
18:11agreeing to allow what I allowed because
18:15it needed to be really tightly protected
18:19from any kind of disclosure and and as I
18:23said I don't think any American
18:26documentary filmmaker would ever agree
18:28to those conditions but it was really
18:30simple for me it was sort of like okay
18:33if you don't want to agree that's fine
18:36you won't film you know I mean that's
18:40your choice if you want to film these
18:43are the conditions I'm not going to be
18:45unreasonable you know we're gonna have
18:48this is going to have to be a matter of
18:51trust and to some extent I'm trusting
18:53you that you're not going to disclose
18:55this footage you know before the end of
18:57the trial and appeals and you're gonna
19:00have to trust me that I'm not going to
19:02be sitting there making unreasonable
19:03demands on you
19:05and and Jean de Lestrade who's the the
19:10director and the producer agreed to all
19:13that and in fact when the first eight
19:19episodes came out and they came out and
19:21I guess 2005 back then we didn't have
19:26streaming I feel really old saying all
19:29these things that we didn't have they
19:33came out on DVDs you know sold by
19:35blockbuster which made a really great
19:40decision not buying Netflix shortly
19:43thereafter so I spent literally two days
19:51they flew me to Paris I spent two days
19:54in a small office watching the first
19:58eight episodes which was probably the
20:00most depressing two days I've ever spent
20:03in my life you know the wounds were
20:08still pretty raw at that point but I
20:11watched it and I think you can probably
20:14tell that I didn't exercise any control
20:17over what went into the film because you
20:21all see me losing it with the video
20:24operator in a scene that I was not
20:28terribly proud of at the time and that
20:32remained in I didn't ask them to take it
20:35out it was I was tempted but I didn't
20:39and what you see in the staircase is
20:45real-time video there was no hey could
20:51you do that over again there was no you
20:55know cut you know let's let's film that
20:59scene again they didn't ask me to say or
21:03do anything that I wasn't planning on
21:07doing and saying now they weren't there
21:1024/7 so let me make that clear so they
21:14did they capture every conversation I
21:17had with Michael over the year and
21:19no of course not they were living in
21:21Paris basically what would happen is if
21:24there was something important that was
21:26gonna happen and again this is where the
21:29sort of the trust comes in I would call
21:32them or I guess I emailed him then I
21:36wouldn't have texted him and I'd say hey
21:40you know the experts are coming to the
21:43house to help brainstorm about you know
21:47what the what the scene looks like and
21:50then they would decide whether to come
21:53or not
21:54so we tried I tried to include them in
21:59the most important parts of it you know
22:03the the brainstorming session that you
22:04saw you know the good facts bad facts
22:07session which went on you know for the
22:09better part of a day you know Josh
22:12carton his his preparation of Michael
22:17for testifying I mean the things that I
22:20knew the focus group so the things that
22:23that I knew were going to be important
22:26they came to and you know it was sort of
22:29risky for me I guess you know I didn't
22:32know how I was going to come across I
22:35didn't know for sure how all these
22:39things were going to appear in the cold
22:41light of day but I had it I had an
22:45agenda so let me tell you what my agenda
22:47was my agenda was to tear down the
22:52stereotypes that people have about
22:56criminal defense lawyers you know I've
22:59spent my entire career being a criminal
23:01defense lawyer and you know aside from
23:05the questions about how can you
23:07represent those people you know which
23:09get really old really fast you know you
23:13watch Law & Order and here's the defense
23:16lawyer and he's all buddy-buddy with the
23:19prosecutor and they're yucking it up
23:20about you know what they're gonna do
23:24with the defendant or you know he goes
23:27in and he tells the defend and you know
23:29he can't defend them it's the case is
23:31just terrible he's got a
23:33out or he's drinking you know or he's
23:38lazy or whatever and and the stereotypes
23:43you know I grew up and I'm gonna date
23:46myself again here but I grew up watching
23:48Perry Mason and and Perry Mason was a
23:53hero you know I mean when he represented
23:57somebody a criminal defense lawyer he
24:00was a hero and and he solved cases and
24:03he sought the truth and you know there's
24:06that you know you talk about a Perry
24:08Mason moment which is the moment when
24:12the truth gets revealed and that's what
24:15I grew up with and that had been lost
24:18over the last couple of decades and I
24:22just thought you know it would be really
24:26good for people lawyers non-lawyers
24:30whoever to be able to see how we do our
24:34jobs how public defenders do their jobs
24:36how private criminal defense lawyers do
24:39their jobs how ethical committed
24:45attorneys defend people every day in
24:49every community in this country you know
24:52what I did in that case it wasn't
24:55terribly extraordinary I mean it was
24:58just nice for me to be able to show
24:59everybody what the people in this room
25:03who are criminal defense lawyers or
25:05public defenders do on a daily basis so
25:08that was my agenda and and I have to say
25:13that I am really really really happy
25:19about how this is all turned out you
25:22know I get questions every once in a
25:24while about you know would you do this
25:26again you know it took 15 years of your
25:30life you know all that and the answer is
25:34I would and and the reason for that is
25:37that I am getting tweets which I never
25:42got before May
25:45I now have 14 thousand followers which
25:49is bizarre to me I'm not sure why
25:53they're following me but they are I get
26:01all these tweets and emails and and
26:03messages on my on my web page about how
26:07you know I'm a I'm a conservative or I'm
26:11a law-and-order person you know or you
26:15know I never thought that that criminal
26:17defense lawyers did anything worthwhile
26:19and I watched the staircase and it
26:24changed my view and I've gotten I've
26:28gotten scores you know I'm not sure if
26:31it's hundreds but it's a lot of comments
26:34like that and and that's something that
26:39you know it's nice for me you know it's
26:41affirming and it strokes my ego and all
26:44that sort of stuff but what's really
26:47nice is to the extent that I have
26:51changed people's perceptions not just of
26:55me but of what we do of the importance
26:59of our work of the nobility of
27:04representing people who are at the worst
27:07moments of their lives and you know sort
27:12of resisting abuses of power and which
27:18certainly in these day this day and age
27:21is becoming more and more important you
27:25know to the extent I was able to send
27:28that message out to the general public
27:32that's that's you know a great legacy
27:35for me that's that's just a really nice
27:37nice way to sort of ride off into the
27:40sunset at some point so I appreciate you
27:45all coming here let me just tell you
27:49give you a little bit of a preview you
27:53know I know that you all really want to
27:56see the
27:57all right y'all want to hear about the
27:59AL theory all right
28:08we've already spit I'm gonna start
28:10yelling at you just like the guy in the
28:13movie never mind never mind
28:18we don't need to do it now don't worry
28:20about it we're not going to do the AL
28:22now sorry
28:23no we're not going to do it now I've got
28:26I've got a great clip if can you cue up
28:29the clip or is that going to be beyond
28:33yep this is going to be worth 30-second
28:36wait all right I promise you and I'm
28:42gonna and I'm gonna keep my cool I'm not
28:45gonna get upset and the owl is here it's
28:49just having she's having her makeup done
28:50right now in the back so I just just
28:52bear with her all right now before you
28:59started let me just let me just queue up
29:02the the story here so one of the things
29:06I really care about is the proliferation
29:10of junk science in the and you all saw
29:20Duane Deaver and what he did in the in
29:25the trial and what ended up happening so
29:29I don't want to talk about that because
29:30you've all watched that already but
29:31there's there's another expert so-called
29:35expert who testified in the trial who no
29:37one's ever seen before
29:39his name was Sammy Shabani and Sammy
29:44Shabani talked with a really crisp
29:48British accent so he had to tell the
29:51truth
29:54you can't lie with a British accent and
29:57he claimed to have been educated at
30:00Oxford
30:03of course he claimed to be an expert in
30:07physics and mechanical engineering and
30:12he also claimed to be on the faculty as
30:16a clinical professor of physics and
30:20engineering at Temple University in
30:23Philadelphia and so you know we had this
30:28broad year and he was qualified because
30:32he testified about all these credentials
30:36but I had done some research on him this
30:39last minute because we didn't have a lot
30:40of notice and I turned up some stuff
30:43that was just a little bizarre about him
30:45and so I ended up getting a hold of
30:51somebody at Temple a lawyer friend of
30:53mine and they sent me the faculty
30:56handbook you know that and his name
30:59wasn't in there and and so I started
31:03digging a little bit more and so the
31:07clip you're about to see is a portion of
31:10my cross-examination of Sammy Shivani
31:14with regard to his his methodology now
31:19you were also consulted with a case in
31:21Eagle River Ville Wisconsin is that
31:23right answer yes ma'am
31:25question that was a case where somebody
31:27was found dead with her head in a toilet
31:29bowl and so that's what the husband
31:32claims yes ma'am now in fact in that
31:36case the woman also had a significant
31:37amount of drugs on board didn't she
31:39which we believe the husband had
31:40administered - oh yes I'm not asking you
31:43what you believed about the husband I'm
31:44asking you whether or not the woman had
31:46a significant amount of drugs in her
31:49system yes sir question and you went
31:53there and you put heads in put actual
31:55heads and toilets is that right answer
31:58as part of my scientific research I
32:02found three volunteers that word may be
32:06used loosely here for four hours I put
32:11their heads into the actual toilet bowl
32:14where the husband claims to have found
32:17his wife because science dictates that
32:21you compare apples with apples the women
32:25volunteers were the same height and the
32:28same weight as the dead woman and I
32:31wanted to see if it was physically
32:33possible for a woman of that height and
32:36that weight with that actual toilet to
32:39commit suicide by drowning or to drown
32:43accidentally and the science says no you
32:47can't question and the science was
32:51putting the heads in the toilet is that
32:54right answer no that was part of it I
32:58asked these women put your head in the
33:01toilet and see if you can drown yourself
33:04and I'll try and fish you out before you
33:07succeed but they never got close they
33:11just simply couldn't do it
33:13the laws of physics didn't allow them to
33:16drown themselves was that your testimony
33:20is that what you consider to be even a
33:23part of science of course you can't make
33:29this stuff up right the judge then
33:33struck his testimony and instructed the
33:36jury to disregard his direct Sammy then
33:39walked by the courtroom he was never
33:41prosecuted for his perjury and indeed a
33:45couple years later as a result of that
33:48testimony and some other things we had
33:50uncovered there was a defendant in
33:54Wisconsin I believe it was who had been
33:56convicted based on Sammy's expert
33:59testimony and I contacted the lawyer in
34:04that case who was doing the
34:05post-conviction work and that particular
34:07defendant their conviction was
34:10overturned as well so now thank you
34:17so junk science is a real problem you
34:20know most of the most of the people are
34:22a little bit more sophisticated and then
34:24Sammy was but it's a real problem and
34:28it's something I hope we can talk about
34:30it's another thing that that I think the
34:34ALF theory is really important and
34:35understand I understand why people are
34:37interested in it but I really hope that
34:39tonight we can broaden the discussion
34:41because the reason I'm here the reason
34:45I'm going other places to talk is is not
34:48to bask in the in the glow of Netflix
34:52and and it's not to talk about whether
34:57Michael Peterson is innocent or guilty
34:59or whether the owl did it or didn't do
35:01it it's really to talk about the
35:04criminal justice system and not just to
35:07to lawyers like you all but to everyday
35:11people who will hopefully go out and
35:12serve on juries and be a little bit more
35:15skeptical of what they hear so thank you
35:18very much for having me
35:27so what I'm gonna do ladies and
35:30gentlemen is Lena and I are going to
35:31moderate from the left so that the
35:32people who belong over here are the ones
35:34you get to see Lena what did you think
35:36of what Rudolf have to say he actually
35:40answered a lot of the questions I had
35:42when I first started watching the series
35:43from a media perspective I was amazed at
35:47the access then I thought what crazy
35:50lawyer would allow this then I thought
35:53what crazy defendant would want this and
35:57you you answer those questions and then
35:58my other question about that access is
36:01that I know having a camera there always
36:04changes the way people act no one is
36:07ever 100% natural I think it's just
36:12human nature than when you know you're
36:14being filmed you just can't be 100% real
36:18and I had a question of whether that
36:22affected how you did your job knowing
36:25that it was being document
36:27but then you had so much control that
36:29you're right you would never have those
36:31kind of restrictions held on any
36:34American film company or for sure no
36:37news company for sure but really amazing
36:39yeah I really enjoyed that thank you
36:44don't charge us more all right no and
36:47and I know that no American news
36:50organization would ever do that I think
36:53there's a question about whether that is
36:56really the right decision
36:59you know I leave that to all your
37:00ethical you know expertise but you know
37:07they wouldn't have gotten all that stuff
37:09without it and I think what they ended
37:12up with is an amazing amazing
37:14documentary so you know I don't I don't
37:18know the right answer there in terms of
37:22the effect of the camera you know I mean
37:26I've got cameras out there and I don't
37:29think it really impacts me you know at
37:32least at this point of my life or career
37:34I think we know when you're younger it
37:36might but I'm focused on doing my job
37:41you know if it's if it's speaking to
37:44everybody I'm focused on that I'm
37:46thinking about what I'm gonna say I'm
37:48not looking at the camera
37:49if meeting with my client I'm focused on
37:52that and and the film crew was really
37:55very respectful about that so they would
37:59set up in a corner and they'd have a
38:03boom mic but you know wouldn't be down
38:05in my face it would be up above so I
38:07couldn't really see it and they never
38:12interrupted they never said anything and
38:15I think at first it was a little awkward
38:17you know for my client and for the
38:20experts and whatnot but what you see in
38:23that film I don't think you see people
38:25feeling terribly awkward you know I
38:28think you see people pretty much acting
38:31the way they act you know whether it's
38:33Michael or the kids or his brother
38:37or me or the experts or whoever so I
38:40hear what you're saying I think you know
38:43I think if someone is not used to being
38:46on camera it's a bigger problem you know
38:51I think from witnesses
38:53you know if there's cameras in the
38:55courtroom I think that can affect them
38:58but I don't really think it affected in
39:01any substantive way well I'll take I'll
39:04take it back there was one there was one
39:06moment in the film where judge Hudson
39:10refuses to rule on whether or not he's
39:16gonna allow in the Germany and the gay
39:19stuff and it was like a week before
39:21trial and Here I am you know I need to
39:24figure out am I gonna am I gonna select
39:26a jury you know am I gonna do four deer
39:28on those issues am I gonna open on those
39:30issues and he's just leaving me hanging
39:33there and I was about as angry as I
39:36could be
39:37but I look at the film and it's like wow
39:40I'm you know I'm pretty cool you know I
39:44I just sort of closed my my pad and I
39:48walk away and you know that wasn't how I
39:50was feeling it so I wondered afterwards
39:52you know maybe maybe I you know I I
39:55controlled myself a little bit more
39:56because there was a camera on but other
40:00than that I'm not sure a really impacted
40:02me well I think you succeeded because
40:03you've totally changed my view of
40:05defense attorneys thank you Pastor
40:10fantastic well ladies and gentlemen one
40:13of the things we've done with this panel
40:14is we don't just have attorneys we
40:17actually have doctors here and we have
40:19doctors who are gonna give their insight
40:21into this and I think that's so critical
40:23with a case like this with the
40:24ambiguities to have essentially
40:26scientists here and discuss it and we
40:27have two doctors from the Los Angeles
40:30coroner's officer taking time out of
40:33their schedules to come here today and
40:34discuss the case with us we have dr.
40:37Ruby Javits gaffar please raise your
40:39hand so everyone knows who you are
40:42and dr. Guevara what is your exact job
40:46title I receive six laboratories for the
40:58medical examiner's office oh that's
40:59fancy and we also have dr. O'Day OOP oh
41:06could you raise your hand so everyone
41:07knows what you are sir and please let us
41:12know your job title my job title is I'm
41:15senior deputy medical examiner at the
41:18Los Angeles County Medical Examiner
41:20coroner's office and what that means is
41:23I'm one of the senior physicians there
41:26who conducts autopsies was also involved
41:29in supervising other physicians
41:31fantastic so I just want to go ahead and
41:34open this up to the both of you what do
41:36you think what do you think about what
41:37mr. Rudolph said what do you think about
41:39the documentary what do you think about
41:41the coroner's report let us know what
41:43you think place this right after mr.
41:50Rudolph discussed junk science I'm
41:53actually a scientist just so you know
41:56the difference I am a trained forensic
41:58toxicologist I do not have my MD I had
42:02my PhD in pharmacology and toxicology so
42:06I did extensive research and
42:09understanding morphine tolerance and
42:11physical dependence and for those that
42:13you know about opiates it's used for
42:16pain treatment for cancer patients and
42:18spinal cord injury patients so I've been
42:21in this field for over 15 years so this
42:23is not my first rodeo I've been in both
42:25the private and the public sector so
42:28I've seen both sides and laboratory
42:31testing so I am in the laboratory cited
42:34things whereas dr. Agbo is a physician
42:37he is a medical doctor he has this MD
42:39and he performs actual autopsies and
42:42that is a quick request can you speak a
42:44little more directly into the microphone
42:46yes they want to hear hear what I just
42:52said am I gonna have to do that again so
42:55um you know I was when we reached out to
42:58me I think it's really important a lot
43:00of people don't understand the roles
43:03that individuals have within different
43:07sectors especially of a medical examiner
43:09coroner's office so I thought it was
43:11really important to be represented here
43:14this is not our case this was obviously
43:17in North Carolina we represent Los
43:19Angeles County
43:20so our policies and procedures are
43:22different this was many many years ago
43:24as well so things have changed but it's
43:29for me I would give the toxicology side
43:34of what was presented to me and in the
43:37Netflix series that's the toxicology
43:40testing and it's very limited there was
43:44alcohol in the system of Kathleen
43:46Peterson it was at point zero seven
43:49percent which in general terms is not a
43:54significant impairment for someone that
43:57has been known to drink and based on
43:59case history the Netflix series of
44:02course I don't have the full actual
44:04investigative report it's based on what
44:06was presented to me she had some form of
44:10alcohol tolerance just based on the fact
44:13that her and her husband Michael enjoyed
44:16wine together or drinking together so
44:18that wasn't unusual but the amount found
44:21in her system is not something that
44:24would lead to a huge impairment to where
44:27she would be completely unstable and
44:29fall down the stairs she also had some
44:32drugs in her system she had trace
44:35amounts of a antihistamine which was
44:38chlorpheniramine
44:40also a muscle relaxant
44:42which is like oh been supreme trace
44:45amounts they don't give actual actual
44:47concentration levels because there were
44:50very small amounts that she probably
44:52used on a regular basis and we're just
44:54found in her blood but there was also
44:57diazepam which is valium
45:01it was within a therapeutic range that
45:03was found in their system I'm not going
45:05to get into the technical or scientific
45:07details of that I know that's not what
45:09you're here for
45:10but the that is my perception on what
45:15was in her system was not something that
45:17would cause a impairment at a level to
45:21where she would be unstable or have any
45:24type of fall again this is on the
45:27limited information I have as well I
45:28don't have the full investigative report
45:31that was from law enforcement agencies
45:33or the actual medical examiner coroner's
45:36office Raleigh Durham so in your
45:39professional opinion you cut out
45:41toxicology as a potential cause of death
45:43yes I would love that but I'm not gonna
45:50cross examine talk a little bit about
45:56the potentiating effect of the diazepam
45:59with the alcohol anytime you have to so
46:04alcohol is a depressant valium days of
46:09ham is an anti-anxiety drug so it's
46:12trying to bring you up but there are
46:14cross three activities that occur but
46:18for someone that has is tolerant to a
46:20drug over a period of time your body
46:24basically develops a new homeostasis so
46:27it's a balance in your system so I'm
46:30just facing this on the information that
46:32was provided won't cross-examine yes
46:35it's it's just not going to be a
46:40potentiating effect or level of
46:43impairment as someone that's completely
46:45naive to these type of drugs if that
46:48makes sense right so it's like a foreign
46:52substance being introduced to your body
46:56you know when you first take a drug
46:58you're gonna feel a very significant
47:01effect you're hoping it's prescribed for
47:04a specific reason and you're going to
47:05receive that effect but over time that
47:08same dosage over time you're not
47:10receive the same effect so there is
47:16cross reactions that occurs with
47:19multiple drugs but just with the
47:22information I've been given with the
47:24alcohol and the diazepam level at the
47:27level that it was it wasn't something
47:30that would have contributed to a
47:33impairment level of where you're out of
47:35balance or impairing in your vision your
47:41balance your speech so if you have a
47:47point O seven level of that blood
47:50alcohol and then you have diazepam on
47:54board as well where does that take you
47:57you know in terms of the the equivalency
48:00in alcohol I mean would it take you up
48:03to a 1-point the 0.10 would it take you
48:07to a point nine well take I mean give me
48:11some sense of them that's very hard to
48:13determine because the number of drinks
48:15you intake doesn't necessarily mean
48:17intoxication for everyone at the same
48:19level because we all are physiologically
48:23different all right and there's genetic
48:25components that come into play you also
48:29when you're doing determining
48:31estimations body weight body fat
48:34percentage weight of that individual as
48:37well so even though we have estimations
48:41that are out there you can never truly
48:43state that at this level with this
48:46amount of alcohol you could get to a
48:48certain level because there are these
48:50variances that you cannot account for
48:52but and again I don't mean to cross I
48:56think you could could we could we agree
49:01that the level of impairment would be
49:03something over point O seven in other
49:07words if Kathleen acted in a particular
49:11way when she had a blood alcohol content
49:12of point O seven could would you agree
49:16that adding the diazepam would increase
49:20whatever impact
49:21the alcohol had or no I would never
49:24state that I would never say that
49:26because there's variances that I cannot
49:29account for it can happen based on the
49:32information that I know with this case
49:34and the fact that she and Michael
49:37enjoyed alcohol together they drink
49:39I mean being consistently together based
49:44on the level that was found in her
49:46system of the valium the days of him I
49:49mean it's a it's a therapeutic level and
49:51I would not consider I could never say
49:54yes I would know it would go to
49:56impairing you know a more significant
50:00impairing level because I can't account
50:03for certain variances within her her
50:05system I can just base it on what I
50:07could be lower or it could be hard
50:09absolutely
50:10okay that is fantastic ladies and
50:13gentleman we got a hand of applause the
50:19idea of having two people on the panel
50:21going back and forth we're not trying to
50:23cross-examine we're not trying to make
50:25it we're not trying to make it
50:27adversarial but it's sometimes through
50:29that Socratic Q&A method which is where
50:32you get the best information I'm so
50:33happy that we got to hear that but I got
50:35to keep time and don't get me wrong I'd
50:37love to let them speak forever it looks
50:39like we're gonna go a little bit late
50:40tonight is that okay with everyone yeah
50:43I figured it would be so we have another
50:45doctor on the panel doctor up oh I can't
50:50see you there you are so let me ask you
50:52a question what is your opinion on
50:54everything that's been discussed so far
50:56if there's anything in particular that
50:57you really want to share with this
50:58please go ahead so first there's just a
51:01quick disclaimer the opinions that I'm
51:03gonna express today I don't represent LA
51:05County now there really is a
51:08professional ladies you know get that
51:11out of the way and so what's fascinating
51:14about this case I like to talk about
51:16what US medical examiner's do or
51:18physicians and our goal is to determine
51:22the the cause of death in an individual
51:25and then we're also tasked in a medical
51:27examiner system
51:28to determine the manner of death so you
51:31have various kinds of manners of death
51:33which are include natural deaths
51:35accidents so much like a car accident
51:38suicides homicides and also we have a
51:42category called undetermined and
51:45undetermined an example of that would be
51:48if let's say someone was found at the
51:51bottom of a cliff and they're dead
51:53there are various sort of reasons that
51:56that person could have been at the
51:57bottom of the cliff I think that many of
51:59you can think of a few of them for
52:02example if someone was intoxicated and
52:05they were just walking along and fell
52:07off the cliff that's one possibility but
52:10let's say that we heard that there was
52:11an argument happening prior to the the
52:14person falling off the cliff could the
52:16person have been pushed and then also
52:19could the person have jumped
52:20intentionally and so the autopsies not
52:24actually going to be able to tell the
52:26difference between those three different
52:27scenarios rather the manner of death
52:30would if we don't have any information
52:33it would be undetermined in that
52:35circumstance and however we rely a lot
52:40on a history so what happens so you go
52:42to your doctor's office and you say well
52:45I had this coffin and now I have a fever
52:47etc and it's you start to work up the
52:49case so we're getting that the history
52:51of the individual so the history of the
52:54case is very important and essential in
52:57our in determining the manner of death
53:00and the autopsy when the man when the
53:04cause of death which is the event that
53:06led to death so like a gunshot wound or
53:09blunt head trauma it's something that we
53:12can determine rather easily however and
53:18in the case such as this blunt head
53:20trauma this is one of the more
53:22challenging cases that we see as
53:24forensic pathologist it's not as
53:26straightforward as a as a gunshot wound
53:28case where it's just like well range of
53:31fire whodunit it's just the person died
53:33of a gunshot wound and so we don't
53:35really determine the circumstances but
53:37what's fascinating to me about this case
53:39is that
53:40it involved that challenging task of you
53:43know you have a case of blunt head
53:44trauma and you're supposed to in a
53:47medical examiner system determine the
53:50manner of death and that often involves
53:54actually every time involves the coroner
53:56investigator report who goes out to the
53:59scene and gets the information that we
54:01need and then photographs are taking it
54:04at the scene and so we review those
54:06things before we go down and do that do
54:08the autopsy and so that's what sort of
54:12struck me about this case that challenge
54:15that we see and when I saw the autopsy
54:18report I was like oh god shot one maybe
54:20oh no it's a blunt head trauma so it's
54:24it's a challenging case you know it's
54:27even more challenging than you then you
54:29say because the cause of death was not
54:33blunt force trauma the cause of death
54:35was actually exsanguination or loss of
54:38blood and indeed we found a note in the
54:45post-conviction files where Deborah
54:48radisch had told Fred ablack this is a
54:52shred of black note that she had
54:54originally determined the cause of death
54:56to be blood loss and that John butts who
54:59was the chief medical examiner of North
55:01Carolina at the time had insisted that
55:03she changed that to blunt force trauma
55:07I'm not sure why that was
55:11but blunt force trauma was not the cause
55:14of death here there was no brain
55:17injuries there was no fractured skull
55:19there were no subdural x' there were no
55:22bruises in the brain the cause of death
55:25was loss of blood so that complicates
55:28the whole picture I think doctor if you
55:34have a response I might have a little
55:37something there
55:38so one of the things that is challenging
55:42is to also understand how we determine
55:44the cause of death so what does the
55:46cause of death mean cause of death it
55:49really is the first the events that led
55:52up to the death so the injury that
55:54caused everything to happen and so there
55:59are several things that can happen to an
56:01individual between death and that event
56:03so for example if someone were to die in
56:05a car accident actually sorry if they
56:08get in a car accident and then they go
56:10to the hospital and they're there for a
56:11week they may develop a pneumonia
56:14infection and all the wounds that they
56:16had all these sort of complications that
56:19result blood loss and under those
56:22various things those are called
56:25mechanisms of death and they're not
56:27causes of death so in that case a car
56:29accident would be a the cause of death
56:32is blunt trauma as it is in this case it
56:36would be inappropriate to just say
56:38exsanguination because you have to say
56:39how did that happen because you can have
56:41it from a stab wound you could have it
56:43from a gunshot wound you could have it
56:45from blunt head trauma and so that's why
56:48that distinction was made in the end
56:50because that's the more appropriate
56:52cause of death do you mind if I just
56:54jump in here real quick doctor because
56:56piggybacking on what you just said so we
56:59had what seven lacerations and no skull
57:02fractures in this case is that
57:04consistent in your professional opinion
57:06with falling down stairs
57:15you're not speaking for the LA County
57:18coroner now okay can I get an objection
57:22from someone objection calls for expert
57:26testimony vague and ambiguous incomplete
57:28hypothetical so on something so the
57:35cause of the the lacerations here I have
57:39to consider sort of a what's like a
57:42called a pretest probability and seen
57:44the multiple amount of people that I've
57:47seen that have died from falling down
57:49the stairs and so in my experience of
57:52seeing someone falling down the stairs
57:55there are impact sites and they could
57:58develop these abrasions which are
58:00scrapes contusions which are bruises and
58:05occasionally they can't have a
58:06laceration the injuries there are
58:11frequently subdural hemorrhage which is
58:14bleeding under the thick layer that's
58:16covering the brain when examine in a
58:21case like this I have to consider the
58:25multiplicity of the lacerations and the
58:30multiplicity of the lacerations is is
58:33not consistent with with a fall and so I
58:37have to consider other mechanisms that
58:41this injury had happened like an owl
58:44[Laughter]
58:47Oh doctor thank you so much we're gonna
58:53probably hear more from you once an owl
58:55comes Alex next I'd like to introduce to
59:01you UCLA law professor Pavel once a wits
59:04and I when I heard that you were gonna
59:07be on the panel and I know that you did
59:09a case study on this particular case I
59:11said why this case there are no shortage
59:15of murders no shortage of cases why this
59:19case oh god a professor things had been
59:26going so well up till now is the bar
59:30open you know I and I appreciate that
59:32there's kind of this now the ivory tower
59:35egghead is gonna talk for a long time so
59:37but and and so thank you for that
59:41laughter so the idea of what intrigued
59:47me about this case was well two things
59:50essentially I was trying to write an
59:53evidence textbook and the idea is that
59:57an evidence professor is the first
59:59professor you throw under the bus all
1:00:02you lawyers are nodding your head I
1:00:03learned more in my first trial than I
1:00:05ever learned in evidence and yet there's
1:00:08a problem with evidence professors
1:00:09because we can get a little ivory tower
1:00:13II and so I wanted to write a book that
1:00:16was based on the problem method I wanted
1:00:18to write a book that teaches students
1:00:21how to make decisions under conditions
1:00:24of uncertainty and so part of that was I
1:00:28did the problem method rather than Law
1:00:30Review articles rather than a lot of
1:00:31cases a lot and lots of problems so
1:00:34let's look at great conditions of
1:00:36uncertainty and how do wise people
1:00:39maneuver in those situations and while
1:00:42the staircase has a lot of conditions of
1:00:45uncertainty a couple things really kind
1:00:49of struck me about the documentary and
1:00:52of course the case first many pieces of
1:00:56evidence can ruin the tapestry of a case
1:01:00you pull
1:01:01one piece a one thread out and the
1:01:04tapestry changes dramatically and those
1:01:08threads in the staircase were often my
1:01:12opinion you may disagree 50/50 coin flip
1:01:17propositions that were absolutely
1:01:20fascinating pedagogically one coin flip
1:01:24one decision that reasonable people
1:01:26reasonable lawyers reasonable viewers
1:01:29who don't have a law degree in
1:01:30reasonable judges could disagree on that
1:01:34absolutely could and I think did affect
1:01:37the result one example is of course Brad
1:01:41and the sex worker and the pornography
1:01:45that was found different result if that
1:01:49was not let in in my opinion absolutely
1:01:51and so sitting back and evaluating okay
1:01:56what's the probative value here okay
1:02:00motive
1:02:01maybe disrupts the idyllic nature of the
1:02:06marriage could be if a couple of things
1:02:10line up but Wow
1:02:12the unfair prejudice especially as I'll
1:02:15talk about in a second the way that
1:02:17evidence was used and and crafted by the
1:02:21prosecutor in the case so that question
1:02:25of how do we weigh that that probative
1:02:28value against that prejudice there were
1:02:31options I would imagine to have scalpel
1:02:34some of it off but the judge led it all
1:02:36in and I think that was a monumental
1:02:41decision in the case that really a lot
1:02:44of students could explore very deeply
1:02:45the second of course is is the death in
1:02:48Germany different result if not let in
1:02:51in my opinion yes what we worry about
1:02:55when we let in so-called propensity
1:02:58evidence is that we're going to over
1:03:01persuade the jury and lead to a
1:03:04preventive conviction and while this
1:03:08evidence absolutely ran that risk this
1:03:12idea that a
1:03:14jury could have been over persuaded by
1:03:16hearing about what happened in Germany
1:03:18and thinking to themselves well he's
1:03:21obviously a stairway serial-killer but i
1:03:23don't need to listen to this evidence
1:03:26because i got that there's also that
1:03:30risk of a preventive conviction why
1:03:33haven't see was he was never punished
1:03:35for germany well we can fix that right
1:03:37now and we're suddenly the the whole
1:03:42trial is now thinking about what's
1:03:43happening in germany and trying to get
1:03:45the jury off that so that they're
1:03:48looking at it for the reason it was let
1:03:51in intent knowledge of what such a scene
1:03:57could look like so it could be maybe
1:03:59replicated absence of accident doctrine
1:04:04of chances which all seemed to me like
1:04:07veiled propensity reasoning that kind of
1:04:11one saw always once a stairway killer
1:04:14always a stairway killer which is not
1:04:18the purpose that the evidence should
1:04:20have been looked at so those moments
1:04:23those fascinating pull the thread and
1:04:26the entire tapestry changes and the fact
1:04:28that they were close calls really kind
1:04:30of influenced me to start using not only
1:04:34the case materials but the video clips i
1:04:36have the exclusive rights if any of you
1:04:39are thinking of writing an evidence book
1:04:41don't do it it's it's worse than a
1:04:43kidney stone and and so i started
1:04:47showing clips to illuminate to start
1:04:52talking about what lawyers do in moments
1:04:54of uncertainty what arguments should
1:04:56they be gravitating to what facts should
1:04:58they be emphasizing and de-emphasizing
1:05:00in creating that tapestry but the second
1:05:04reason i was i was really fond of the
1:05:07case from a again a egghead law
1:05:10professor kind of way was that if you
1:05:13start pulling some of these threads it
1:05:18shows the limits of evidence law in a in
1:05:21a really profound way so the goal of
1:05:24evidence laws to achieve the right
1:05:25result
1:05:27and what was striking to me - most of my
1:05:31students who who watch it and who often
1:05:34schedule office hours after I show some
1:05:36clips to kind of debrief and want to
1:05:39talk about it was how the method of
1:05:42proving propositions could often veer
1:05:46violently away from the arguments that
1:05:49led to their admission and it really
1:05:54showed kind of the difference between
1:05:55knowing the law and lawyer which are
1:05:59different things it also really kind of
1:06:03pushes one's faith in jury instructions
1:06:06ladies and gentlemen of the jury you may
1:06:07use this for X but please don't use it
1:06:09for Y don't look at why I'm gonna stop
1:06:12talking about why you can't use it for
1:06:14what and and that to me was typify by
1:06:20Miz blacks the the prosecutors closing
1:06:24regarding Brad the the sex worker and so
1:06:30I showed that as a four part sequence I
1:06:31take four different parts from the first
1:06:34eight episodes the first is a
1:06:38brainstorming session between mr.
1:06:40Rudolph and and mr. Maher where they
1:06:44were thinking about the argument to come
1:06:45and and doing that kind of spitballing
1:06:47that lawyers do which i think is
1:06:49incredibly valuable to future lawyer
1:06:52stood to just kind of see two lawyers
1:06:54kind of say let's let's keep bouncing
1:06:56things play devil's advocate bring it
1:06:58that's great that rarely has been
1:07:01captured before and I was a trial
1:07:03attorney for a number of years it's it's
1:07:05so much a part of all our days I really
1:07:07appreciated seeing that and that was the
1:07:10the clip where mr. Rudolph said that you
1:07:14know contemplating sex with a prostitute
1:07:17really doesn't say anything about your
1:07:19marriage I was watching that clip with
1:07:21my wife
1:07:25and she said so help me God if you nod
1:07:28your head the second clip I show is then
1:07:39the argument to lawyers spitballing
1:07:42playing devil's advocate doing that
1:07:43Socratic method that you alluded to and
1:07:45enter the argument okay
1:07:49motive Brad the sex worker shows us
1:07:53motive the pornography
1:07:56in the computer shows us motive and
1:07:59there's a big kind of conditional
1:08:02relevance problem here if this evidence
1:08:06was discovered by the victim if this
1:08:10evidence was previously not known to her
1:08:12and came as a surprise to her if it
1:08:15would up end the marriage then perhaps
1:08:20yes if we can kind of jump through all
1:08:23those hoops then we got ourselves a
1:08:25motive likewise the idea of rebutting
1:08:31the idyllic marriage I get it those were
1:08:35the stated purposes that the judge
1:08:38seemed comfortable with and upon which
1:08:40he ruled yes you may use it for those
1:08:42two purposes motive and idyllic marriage
1:08:46then I show the students okay the judge
1:08:50has ruled in his wisdom let's see how it
1:08:52plays out let's see that direct and
1:08:54cross and that direct where suddenly
1:09:00we're talking about anal sex where did
1:09:04that come from it quote from the
1:09:06anchorman movie while that escalated
1:09:08quickly
1:09:11suddenly we are having this moment where
1:09:16we're focused on motive where we're
1:09:18focusing on perhaps this doesn't reflect
1:09:21the most idyllic of marriages and we're
1:09:24talking about sexual positions and
1:09:26everything under the Sun was what they
1:09:29were contemplating doing together and I
1:09:33think the cross and I'm not saying this
1:09:35because he's in the room I thought it
1:09:36was a wonderful cross-examination where
1:09:39the cross of Brad focused on how many of
1:09:43your clients are married how many of
1:09:46your clients are professionals in a
1:09:50moment that my students love how many
1:09:54are bisexual how many have wives a
1:09:58really lovely job
1:10:00I think of limiting the probative value
1:10:03of why this was coming in after that are
1:10:07we really feeling motive here are we
1:10:08really feeling that we've destroyed the
1:10:11idyllic marriage and all the other
1:10:13evidence that showed potential a
1:10:15wonderful close relationship
1:10:18so students tend to think that's the end
1:10:21okay judge ruled one side presented
1:10:26evidence the other side combated it it's
1:10:28kind of a you know let the weak evidence
1:10:30lose kind of situation and then comes
1:10:34the clip of the closing the closing
1:10:37where Miz black referred to Michael
1:10:43Peterson as a bisexual I use four
1:10:46syllables when I use bisexual she uses
1:10:4812 um it was kind of a long word as I
1:10:53was watching the clip her illusion that
1:10:57does it make sense to you that while she
1:11:00went to work he stayed home and was
1:11:04looking for a sexual dalliance so again
1:11:07kind of playing with that stereotype of
1:11:09you know the woman was the bread earner
1:11:13the wage winner in the family while
1:11:16Michael was at home looking for sex
1:11:20the I don't want to offend anyone but
1:11:25this was anal sex so that came home to
1:11:28roost the way she talked about the
1:11:33pornography as any which away I don't
1:11:37mean to offend you she says and she
1:11:39throws the pornography on the jury and
1:11:42says that is hard core porn and so we
1:11:46get these moments where were and then
1:11:48she closes by saying and that's not how
1:11:50soul mates react so she brought it back
1:11:51to the probative purpose of it but with
1:11:56a whole lot of prejudicial stereotypes
1:11:58thrown in and so it was moments like
1:12:01that that to me - again that's a very
1:12:04long answer to a very good question
1:12:06offer that rare view of both the micro
1:12:08and the macro um it teaches how the
1:12:11rules of evidence should be argued by
1:12:13capable very zealous advocates but it's
1:12:16also fascinating to look at how evidence
1:12:18can be used and misused and and the
1:12:21staircase provides very valuable insight
1:12:23for that as well that is incredibly
1:12:26interesting
1:12:31just out of curiosity for the lawyers
1:12:34and the audience does anyone here miss
1:12:35law school I do a little is that strange
1:12:40okay well guys I just want to go ahead
1:12:43and say something real quick and this is
1:12:45super important so let me just walk over
1:12:46here what I want to go ahead and do is
1:12:49we're gonna break in just a minute we're
1:12:50gonna have an intermission and by the
1:12:52way I don't know if mr. Rudolph realized
1:12:55this but he plugged the owl you know why
1:12:57we have the owl in the second hour
1:12:58so you guys all come back that's a whole
1:13:01that's a whole idea here but we also
1:13:03have a district attorney who I know has
1:13:06some opinions so let me just talk about
1:13:13this panel for a second and then we're
1:13:15gonna break for our intermission first I
1:13:17got to tell you guys something this
1:13:19panel was put together by mr. Lew
1:13:22Shapiro people tell me Daniel you work a
1:13:31lot and my response is have you met Lou
1:13:33and I see the emails he's sending at
1:13:351:00 a.m. and you know he really put
1:13:37this together and it's a beautiful panel
1:13:38look we got a criminal defense attorney
1:13:40we got scientist we got a professor and
1:13:43we're gonna have the offense coming up
1:13:44in just a second so you get to see
1:13:47perspectives from all areas of the law
1:13:50and the only way the only way the WBA is
1:13:54available to do this at no cost is
1:13:57through the sponsorship and this is why
1:14:00this is so important this is why I came
1:14:01out here to say this to you guys so we
1:14:04do something a little different I think
1:14:05the State Bar requires us to have a 10
1:14:07minute break we have what we call a
1:14:09sponsored break it's 20 minutes we
1:14:11double the time here's why you take your
1:14:1310 minutes freshen up use the restroom
1:14:15and do what you got to do all that stuff
1:14:17and then you should have 10 minutes left
1:14:18over at that point from everyone on the
1:14:21WBA board we sincerely ask that you go
1:14:23ahead and you patronize all the sponsors
1:14:26who are out there because but for them
1:14:28we wouldn't be able to do what we do and
1:14:30by the way it's not like we have
1:14:31lackluster sponsors out there these
1:14:33people are all hand selected and we
1:14:35believe that they will provide you all
1:14:37wonderful products so why don't we break
1:14:40for 20 minutes ladies and gentlemen and
1:14:41we'll see y'all back here in just a
1:14:42second
1:14:43[Applause]
1:14:45so some of you may have watched in the
1:14:50staircase when Henry Lee testified and
1:14:55you know Henry is if he's not the
1:14:59world's foremost expert on crime-scene
1:15:05reconstruction and interpretation he's
1:15:08certainly in the top three and so we're
1:15:12really fortunate tonight Henry's in in
1:15:16China but he's agreed to appear what via
1:15:21satellite or via said we're gonna
1:15:24FaceTime call him Henry
1:15:31why did you give Deaver that book my son
1:15:37up to the bisector I why didn't you tell
1:15:43me you gave him the book my book the
1:15:48whole thing the Chinese book yeah well
1:15:52we we just showed the clip where you got
1:15:55cross-examined with your book and I told
1:15:58I told him I had no idea and you then
1:16:00you said that I was a lousy attorney
1:16:04[Laughter]
1:16:07I'll let you take over Henry the bus you
1:16:10heard the bus okay dr. Lee can you hear
1:16:15us very well yes I can hear you right I
1:16:18know you have some slides that we're
1:16:19gonna show the audience so let's talk
1:16:22about your testimony in the trial and
1:16:26talk about the forensic evidence the
1:16:32first slide shows one of the best rookie
1:16:43working the best attorney just like a
1:16:50coach and a quarterback stuck in spy
1:16:56shows the real worker that's Ricky
1:17:02I have to kick some blood now put in my
1:17:07mouth and tried to reproduce so-called
1:17:12medium velocity blood spatter those
1:17:17fullest and fun and the wall it's not
1:17:20because beat up but decedent actually
1:17:24because the decedent wasn't I lying
1:17:28there supper and coffee the first life
1:17:34is a distance view shows the overall
1:17:38view of the staircase the poorest lie
1:17:44it's a close-up show the major stand
1:17:51which actually consists of five
1:17:54different type of blessed and some are
1:17:59contact transfer like a hares wife her
1:18:03head touched a surface then some are
1:18:08running pattern last shows she already
1:18:11have some open wounds blur floating from
1:18:15the top down we didn't see any sign of a
1:18:19struggle
1:18:19you mister beating we can we should see
1:18:24some pattern of struggle in there
1:18:27dishing what he had bliss patty goes the
1:18:32next slide number five is a close-up
1:18:36shield a portion of the blood stem which
1:18:41the prosecution say this due to the beat
1:18:45up repetitively her head was hit however
1:18:51when you examine those blood stem
1:18:54probably far about 500 of the individual
1:18:58is there if you look at number six it's
1:19:02a large little bit you can see many of
1:19:06the staff with our Center with a go
1:19:11center or
1:19:15some people refer as the hollow stand
1:19:17which means dospollos dang initially
1:19:21have some air bubbles hit the surface
1:19:26subsequently dry their air bubble bust
1:19:29so leave a holy pattern next slide I'm
1:19:37pointing out some of those mixture of a
1:19:42different type of pattern of Sly you
1:19:46have a red arrow that's a whole blood
1:19:50which means the blue without dilution
1:19:55you have the yellow color those shows
1:20:01without a center or so the blue line
1:20:06it's varied the loaded velocity and mass
1:20:10shows cook could be mixed with saliva
1:20:14that's why the prosecution ship we
1:20:17suggest should test for Emily's Emily is
1:20:21at the just depends up in people's
1:20:25person's mouth
1:20:26so in other words the source of the
1:20:29blood it's not really from her walk on
1:20:33the hat honest coat but it's come out of
1:20:37her mouth because the blood got into the
1:20:41mouth and start coughing up now we look
1:20:50at an X lie that's an over of view of
1:20:54the staircase passing kissing clam she
1:21:02was beat up in that area that area I'm
1:21:08sure they brought up already talked
1:21:12about is a very small confined area if
1:21:17you look at the following slide shows
1:21:19the floorboard that's the area they
1:21:25think her head was lying
1:21:28against the flow bar and mr. Peterson
1:21:33beat her up
1:21:35however if you look the next slide that
1:21:41indicates she was lying on the floor at
1:21:46one of the time cause that
1:21:59he is coming through from China ladies
1:22:02and gentlemen let's see if we can get
1:22:03him back on there
1:22:14are these photos tough for anyone take a
1:22:16look at I heard absolutely yes and I
1:22:20heard absolutely no at the same time
1:22:24[Music]
1:22:27hello okay
1:22:36the next one is a close-up like
1:22:40illustrate those hoesley Center no
1:22:45Center plus there which again because
1:22:49her copy so she probably line there for
1:22:53quite a while and the Bertram into the
1:22:57mouth and the nose start copying off
1:23:00create them and which I sent the
1:23:04prosecution expert completed overlook
1:23:07these are intentionally or
1:23:10unintentionally the next slide shows the
1:23:14overview from the coupler stare down
1:23:18words in the dishing which shows her
1:23:21head injury now if we look at her this
1:23:30house is a very old house the
1:23:34construction is an excellent woodwork so
1:23:39the next slide shows the molding
1:23:42it's not like a modern construction it's
1:23:46just one corner it's like multiple
1:23:50corners so we can see that slide I show
1:23:55three dark blue arrow shows the three
1:24:00area have a physical contact which
1:24:04indicative at one point a time her hat
1:24:08have contact the morning area three
1:24:12separate paths so the following slide is
1:24:17that more close-up showing that so many
1:24:22days later when we examine the surface
1:24:25we still
1:24:27all the hair I hear least the blur Stan
1:24:31that's a another indication her head was
1:24:36bumped unto the Modi separate half each
1:24:42time pumping demoting as you can see the
1:24:45next slide and morning area the
1:24:49construction so each hit may cause three
1:24:52or even more injury by single contact
1:24:57because the uneven surface so the
1:25:01physical evidence actually caught shows
1:25:04us that's more likely is accident
1:25:08instead on a homicide okay
1:25:13[Laughter]
1:25:20but dr. leave one more question before
1:25:27we let you go you've heard of the owl
1:25:29theory do you think that the injuries
1:25:32could have been caused by an owl i i
1:25:43cannot reproduce that experiment
1:25:49all right thank you very much one more
1:25:51time dr. Henry Lee joining us from China
1:25:54thank you so much you're wonderful
1:25:58thank you bye-bye thank you okay ladies
1:26:00and gentlemen gonna go forward we have
1:26:02two more presenters here we've
1:26:04definitely saved some of the best for
1:26:06last we have a deputy district attorney
1:26:08miss Reena Durant who is going to
1:26:12discuss her opinions of what's going on
1:26:15mr. an my opinions my opinions only not
1:26:25the opinions of the Los Angeles County
1:26:27District Attorney's Office I've been a
1:26:29deputy da for 11 and a half years I'm
1:26:32currently running one of the busiest
1:26:34courtrooms I think in the country but
1:26:37before that I spent a large part of my
1:26:39career prosecuting sex crimes child
1:26:42abuse and domestic violence cases and
1:26:44working alongside victims and I just
1:26:47want to take a poll of how many people
1:26:49in this room are trial attorneys who
1:26:51work with juries okay a decent number so
1:26:56for those of you who don't do that and
1:26:58for those of you who aren't attorneys
1:26:59here
1:27:00you may not realize that what we do is
1:27:03trial attorneys is we tell stories and
1:27:05that's our bread and butter as trial
1:27:08attorneys is telling stories we also
1:27:11live in a city that is based on telling
1:27:13stories and we're in Hollywood right now
1:27:15so I think a lot of people we surround
1:27:18ourselves with make their bread and
1:27:19butter by telling stories and why am i
1:27:22bringing this up I'm supposed to be the
1:27:23DA just telling you and getting pissed
1:27:25off and telling you stuff because the
1:27:27staircase to me is
1:27:28story it is not truth and I think a lot
1:27:33of us want to watch these true crime
1:27:35shows because we want truth if we just
1:27:37wanted a story we'd go out and watch
1:27:38some crappy thing in the theatre but
1:27:41we're expecting truth so what I would
1:27:44like to point out to you is some of the
1:27:47evidence that was left out of this
1:27:49documentary they had a hundred and forty
1:27:51three thousand dollars in credit card
1:27:52debt Michaels two sons his biological
1:27:56sons had their own massive amounts of
1:27:59credit card debt that he was worried
1:28:01about in fact just before Kathleen died
1:28:03he had messaged his wife his former wife
1:28:06the mother of his two sons saying that
1:28:09he didn't know how he was gonna pay for
1:28:11all this and that he couldn't even bring
1:28:12this up to Kathleen because their sons
1:28:14were in such a bad debt for three years
1:28:18before she died they were spending a
1:28:20hundred thousand dollars more per year
1:28:21than they were bringing in most
1:28:26importantly she was married before and
1:28:28the reason she left her first husband
1:28:31was because he was cheating on her okay
1:28:35think about that so Michael we know a
1:28:40lot about Michael and I would posit to
1:28:43you that he is one of the major story
1:28:45tellers that we hear from in this
1:28:47documentary Michael who claimed to have
1:28:50two purple hearts that he got during his
1:28:53service in the war but it turned out he
1:28:56only had one and it was actually because
1:28:57he got into a car accident in Japan
1:28:59Michael who wrote a drunk-driving column
1:29:03claiming to promote zero tolerance yet
1:29:06he had just gotten a DUI a first few
1:29:09years before that initially in the
1:29:12documentary he's confronted with his
1:29:13bisexuality by his lawyer by the private
1:29:17investigator and I think his response is
1:29:20I would never do that well then it comes
1:29:23out no everyone knew about my
1:29:25bisexuality including my wife and all my
1:29:27children except none of the kids
1:29:29actually knew and every time he was
1:29:31asked well did Kathleen know he could
1:29:33never give a direct answer it was always
1:29:36something like well it was implied he
1:29:40was interviewed in 2017 and I'm going to
1:29:42this directly quote I never talked to a
1:29:45soul about it it's like when you get
1:29:48away with something you keep getting
1:29:50away with it it becomes oh it's alright
1:29:54that was in reference to his bisexuality
1:29:57but this is who we're talking about here
1:30:00this is our storyteller he was this big
1:30:03writer that's what he did for a living
1:30:05as he told stories but he was barely
1:30:07bringing any money and compared to
1:30:08Kathleen he ran for mayor unsuccessfully
1:30:13that's when we found out about him lying
1:30:15about his Purple Heart and he also had a
1:30:17book deal ready with HarperCollins
1:30:19during the trial in the event that he
1:30:21was acquitted book deal never went
1:30:23through Liz Ratliff the German woman
1:30:27when her husband had died she was given
1:30:31a $250,000 life-insurance policy and
1:30:34Michael being the good guy he was
1:30:36decided that he was going to handle that
1:30:37for her I personally don't have any
1:30:40information as to what happened when Liz
1:30:42Ratliff died and her inheritance
1:30:44but it was convenient that he then took
1:30:47over responsibility for her two children
1:30:51I'd also like to point out that he
1:30:53developed a romantic relationship with
1:30:55the editor of the staircase that lasted
1:30:58until 2017 so let's get to that night he
1:31:06claimed that she was still breathing
1:31:08when he found her at the bottom of the
1:31:10staircase
1:31:11well paramedics said that when they
1:31:13arrived she had been dead for quite some
1:31:15time and how did they know this they
1:31:17knew this because the blood was dried
1:31:19the blood was too congealed for a fall
1:31:22that had just happened and we later
1:31:26found out that there were red neurons
1:31:27present in the blood on her scalp and
1:31:30you only see those when there's been two
1:31:35hours or more lack of oxygen to the
1:31:37brain and if I'm getting that science
1:31:39wrong you guys can correct me on that
1:31:42also there was a cleanup under her body
1:31:45and under her head were paper towels
1:31:47towels Michaels socks Michaels shoes if
1:31:51your wife is sitting there dying
1:31:54breathing her last breath what
1:31:56doing taking your shoes off and wiping
1:31:58things around luminol showed that there
1:32:02were footsteps leading from the scene of
1:32:04her death
1:32:05to the kitchen to the wine glass cabinet
1:32:09and that there was a bloody fingerprint
1:32:11on that cabinet next to that cabinet
1:32:15were two wine glasses neither of which
1:32:17had Kathleen's fingerprints on them why
1:32:20is this significant because if you want
1:32:23to make it look like an accidental fall
1:32:24it's a better towel if you've got a
1:32:27empty bottle of wine and two glasses to
1:32:30signal that she had been wasted and
1:32:31drinking all night but we know she
1:32:32wasn't intoxicated because she could
1:32:35have driven a car safely and been under
1:32:38the legal limit at that point there are
1:32:42no injuries on her body that suggests a
1:32:45fall she didn't have bruising that I'm
1:32:47aware of on her body I bruise easily and
1:32:50I fall and I'm clumsy and if I fall I
1:32:53have bruises on me we didn't see
1:32:55anything like that on her body
1:32:57furthermore and I think this is probably
1:33:00the most significant piece of evidence
1:33:01that I cannot believe was not mentioned
1:33:04in the documentary is that according to
1:33:07the coroner's report there was a
1:33:09bloodied fracture with hemorrhage on the
1:33:11small extension off of the left thigh
1:33:14Royd cartilage what does that mean
1:33:17bruising on her neck
1:33:19okay that is inconsistent with a fall
1:33:22that is consistent with strangulation
1:33:24and if we have time during the Q&A I'd
1:33:27love to hear more about that from the
1:33:28doctors so the owl theory okay meanwhile
1:33:37this is the only reason I agreed to be
1:33:38on this panel
1:33:39[Laughter]
1:33:44but I think there's no coincidence that
1:33:50Liz Ratliff had seven lacerations on her
1:33:54scalp when she died
1:33:56Kathleen Peterson also had seven
1:33:59lacerations on her scalp that would have
1:34:02been two very similar rules who attacked
1:34:06these two women across an ocean from one
1:34:09another if we're gonna believe the owl
1:34:11theory I'm just gonna end by saying that
1:34:15the fact that we're all here and that
1:34:18people have such strong opinions about
1:34:19this show indicates that stories and the
1:34:21stories we tell are powerful and with
1:34:24great power comes great responsibility
1:34:28because stories have consequences the
1:34:30people who watch these shows are going
1:34:31to be the people sitting on your juries
1:34:33who are gonna feel like they can't trust
1:34:36anything that they hear anymore and we
1:34:39live in a world of me too we live in a
1:34:41world of fake news we live in a
1:34:43different world now where we have to
1:34:45question the information we're getting
1:34:47who's telling us these stories and what
1:34:50they have to gain by it
1:34:51and if we're being told a story where
1:34:54we're hearing more about a man's sex
1:34:56life than we are about a woman's career
1:34:58and who she was this woman whose life
1:35:01was taken too soon it makes you wonder
1:35:03is this the kind of story that I want to
1:35:05promote so I urge you not as lawyers but
1:35:09as people to take responsibility and
1:35:11have integrity in what you do and how
1:35:13you tell your stories and search for
1:35:15truth and not just winning because there
1:35:18are losers everywhere Kathleen was a
1:35:20loser in this case but she's somebody
1:35:23that the filmmakers all but forgotten
1:35:25how they portrayed this story so don't
1:35:29want to end on a dark note but thank you
1:35:33for giving me a chance to fill that
1:35:36sucker Wow
1:35:38Wow
1:35:44how about we talk about the owl please
1:35:47please okay so let's talk about the owl
1:35:51who is with the owl right now this is
1:35:56crystal Chen she is an owl expert I met
1:36:00her earlier today and we had a good talk
1:36:02about first of all tell me about the
1:36:05object you have in front of you how much
1:36:07it weighs and and all that this is a
1:36:11pole that's her name
1:36:12she's a Eurasian Eagle Owl native to
1:36:15Europe and Asia and she's about 5 pounds
1:36:21she's about a year old and she's full
1:36:23grown this is one of the largest owls in
1:36:27the world much bigger than the one
1:36:29that's being suspected suspected what
1:36:33does she eat she eats mice in the wild
1:36:36they would eat rodent and these
1:36:39particular owls they would actually
1:36:40sometimes eat smaller owls or other
1:36:43birds and but she gets about five dead
1:36:47mice a day oh great
1:36:49do we have a video that we can show
1:36:50about the Owls theory and then we can
1:36:52talk a little more about that theory
1:36:53after we watch this I heard it described
1:36:56that the talons on these owls are like
1:36:57knives like they've got eight knives at
1:37:00the at the bottom they're extremely
1:37:02sharp and powerful how powerful I mean
1:37:05do you think that an owl could cause
1:37:07that much damage to a human
1:37:12I don't know I've never had one of these
1:37:15I was uh grabbed up my head before but
1:37:18they have grabbed my arm and it does it
1:37:21does hurt but that's a different surface
1:37:23so I can't really say and David if you
1:37:27could talk about the decision that well
1:37:31because it came to you so late that you
1:37:33couldn't do anything with it you were
1:37:34where were you in closing arguments that
1:37:36point
1:37:38preparing for closing argument so the
1:37:41evidence was closed anyone else on the
1:37:46panel would like to give their opinion
1:37:48about the owl theory well what I'd like
1:37:51to do is I have a slide and I can go
1:37:53through the evidence that supports the
1:37:56owl theory it's a bunch of
1:37:57circumstantial evidence I don't have a
1:37:59video of that owl attacking Kathleen but
1:38:05there is there are a number of
1:38:08circumstantial pieces that fit the
1:38:12theory so I've got that slide can you
1:38:15put that up okay
1:38:24he escaped
1:38:38I think you want to go yeah okay so what
1:38:48I've got up on the screen are some of
1:38:50the pieces of circumstantial evidence
1:38:52that could have been argued at a second
1:38:55trial if one had been had number one is
1:38:59there are barred owls that were living
1:39:01in the woods by the Petersen house
1:39:03that's not a coincidence that's a fact
1:39:07barred owls are aggressive and can be
1:39:10dangerous
1:39:11that's not speculation that's a fact and
1:39:15indeed the Audubon Society if you read
1:39:19that particular article has confirmed
1:39:23that barred owls have attacked people on
1:39:26numerous occasions you don't have to
1:39:29take my word for it
1:39:30Google or go to youtube and punch in
1:39:35barred owls attacking humans and you
1:39:38will have at least 25 probably more 50
1:39:43videos showing barred owls swooping down
1:39:47on the heads of human beings and
1:39:49attacking them there were drops of blood
1:39:53on the outside walkway leading to the
1:39:56front door of the house at the time I
1:40:00had tunnel vision and so I ignored that
1:40:04I didn't ignore him you know obviously I
1:40:05want to know what caused that and so I
1:40:08came up with my theory you know my
1:40:11theory was that Michael with blood
1:40:14dripping because he had put towels under
1:40:16Kathleen's head had walked out with
1:40:21blood which by the way was not dry at
1:40:24the time the EMTs got there that was
1:40:26added to their reports months later but
1:40:31facts are stubborn things
1:40:38so there were these blood drops and I
1:40:40thought well Michael must have walked
1:40:41out and was looking for the EMTs and
1:40:45those drops came off his hands there was
1:40:48a large smear of blood on the outside of
1:40:51the front door
1:40:52again as shown in police photos my
1:40:56assumption was that Michael had put his
1:40:58hand up there when he was waiting for
1:41:00the EMTs at least two of the wounds on
1:41:05Kathleen Peterson's scalp the ones on
1:41:07the far right side are in the shape of
1:41:10the talons of a barred owl as shown on
1:41:14the autopsy photos
1:41:16the tiny wounds on Kathleen's face there
1:41:21were little prick marks are completely
1:41:23consistent with the tip of an Al's beak
1:41:26a feather was found on Kathleen's body
1:41:32in dried blood I assumed that that came
1:41:37from some sort of a down pillow I
1:41:40couldn't understand it so I invented my
1:41:44explanation that it must have come from
1:41:47a down pillow a twig was found on the
1:41:52stairway I invented my explanation and
1:41:55must have come from the Christmas tree
1:41:57that had just been put up there were
1:42:02numerous strands of Kathleen Peterson's
1:42:05head hair which the roots indicated had
1:42:08been pulled out not cut found in dried
1:42:14blood on her hands so how did those
1:42:19strands of hair get pulled out of her
1:42:22head she didn't do it could an al have
1:42:26done it wrapped in her head absolutely
1:42:30Kathleen's head injuries are not
1:42:33consistent with her having been beaten
1:42:35by a blunt object and I didn't hear any
1:42:38theory of what caused the wounds you
1:42:42know is it is it a blow poke really with
1:42:45no cast-off so she was beaten if she was
1:42:51beaten she had no brain injury she had
1:42:55no swelling she had no subdural
1:42:58hematomas and she had no skull fractures
1:43:01how many cases of blunt-force trauma
1:43:04have you processed
1:43:05you did where there was none of that and
1:43:08no defensive fractures on her hands
1:43:10where she was trying to protect herself
1:43:12tell me how many cases like that have
1:43:14you had all I've done is mentioned the
1:43:20evidence that was presented at trial
1:43:22that wasn't included in no actually what
1:43:24you've done is misrepresented the
1:43:26evidence and you still haven't answered
1:43:29my question how many times have you seen
1:43:31blunt force trauma injuries with a head
1:43:34where you didn't have any of those
1:43:36injuries because I can tell you in North
1:43:38Carolina there were 250 blunt force
1:43:41trauma autopsies done in the ten years
1:43:44before and there wasn't one not one I
1:43:48think that's probably a question better
1:43:51posed to the coroner not to it no I
1:43:53asked you because you prosecute these
1:43:55cases so you see what the autopsies are
1:43:58and you're the one who misrepresented
1:44:00the facts so I'm asking you can you give
1:44:03me an answer I have not tried any of
1:44:07those but perhaps we could ask somebody
1:44:09who could give us some scientific large
1:44:12enough variable so that you could
1:44:14actually find a pattern yes thanks for
1:44:16your evasive this let's try to keep this
1:44:22civil ladies and gentlemen I understand
1:44:23look guys we got bears something in mind
1:44:25at the end of the day we're all here
1:44:26enjoying ourselves
1:44:27someone did pass away as a result of all
1:44:30of this it's a serial it's a serious
1:44:32topic and I can see why both a
1:44:34prosecutor and a defense attorney would
1:44:36feel very passionately about it and I
1:44:39feel passionately about facts I feel
1:44:43passionately about facts and what we
1:44:47heard 10 minutes ago
1:44:49were a few accurate facts mixed in with
1:44:55many many false facts and that's not
1:44:59fair
1:45:04well excuse me yes so because I'm a
1:45:27human being because I'm a human being
1:45:29because I'm a human being
1:45:37and what's your explanation have had
1:45:39this exactly okay I'll give you out well
1:45:50how am I gonna go line by line I didn't
1:45:53I didn't actually let's just be clear
1:45:59well why don't you get if she can give
1:46:01me her list I'll go through them one by
1:46:03one
1:46:04yeah I need to remember what she said
1:46:09give me your list and I'll go through
1:46:10them well that well first of all the
1:46:18wine glasses were all done by Duane
1:46:21Deaver so if you want to rely on Duane
1:46:23Devers stuff you be my guest
1:46:28no it's bruising on then let's hold off
1:46:32on additional questions we're gonna
1:46:34actually pass a mic around much better
1:46:37that way no the prosecution never argued
1:46:41strangulation
1:46:43because guess what there was no
1:46:46petechiae there were no bruises on the
1:46:49neck there were no outward signs of
1:46:53strangulation period well I'm happy to
1:47:01hear what they have to say about it yeah
1:47:03mr. Rudolph let's hear from the doctors
1:47:07concerning findings in this case was the
1:47:11fracture of the thyroid cartilage so
1:47:14what is the thyroid cartilage that's
1:47:15your Adam's apple
1:47:16so there's hemorrhage there which is
1:47:19deep bruising that you don't see on the
1:47:21external aspect of the body so that that
1:47:23in fact is a bruise it's just deep so
1:47:26the fracture of the thyroid cartilage is
1:47:29something that we see in cases of a
1:47:32strangulation or some sort of chokehold
1:47:35is placed on the individual they don't
1:47:37have to die from that it just has to
1:47:39happen in a second so it doesn't
1:47:41necessarily have to be the cause of
1:47:44death and it's kind of hard to fall on
1:47:46your Adam's apple if you I don't
1:47:48remember someone saying you know I
1:47:49accidentally looked yesterday I fell on
1:47:51my arms up one so and the reason why is
1:47:55because their heads out front and so the
1:47:57neck is protected so that's very unusual
1:48:00finding that was in this case in regards
1:48:04to the the brain injury there is
1:48:06actually a significant brain injury in
1:48:08this case it's called subarachnoid
1:48:09hemorrhage that is a severe injury that
1:48:12I see in severe blunt trauma cases and
1:48:15that is actually can be a lethal injury
1:48:18in of itself earlier there was a mention
1:48:22of red neurons in the in the brain by
1:48:25the da and red neurons are something
1:48:29that when the brain has an injury and
1:48:33it's not effectively pumping blood and
1:48:35oxygen to the brain the cells start to
1:48:37die in order for cells to start to die
1:48:41you have to be surviving so if you die
1:48:44instantly you're not going to see this
1:48:46so so those those are some things that
1:48:50were brought up earlier I just wanted to
1:48:52clarify also the mention of the I just
1:48:58met this out so I'm not in cahoots with
1:49:02it without I think she's a cool gal but
1:49:06anyway the the instrument the implement
1:49:09that was used here was described as
1:49:12sharp so talons are sharp injuries that
1:49:17are sharp they cause what are called in
1:49:20size ones
1:49:21sighs woman you could think of like a
1:49:22surgeon's blade if they were to cut open
1:49:24to start to surgery the the wound is
1:49:27very thin and it's not a laceration
1:49:31sharp instruments don't create
1:49:33lacerations they create they create in
1:49:37size wounds as I mentioned so laceration
1:49:38is where you have separation of the skin
1:49:41and underneath it it's sort of irregular
1:49:44tissue bridging so that characteristic
1:49:47there is indicative of blunt trauma and
1:49:50it cannot have been done by something
1:49:51that is sharp so if we were to believe
1:49:53that this instrument here is sharp blunt
1:49:57trauma by definition is injury due to
1:49:58something that isn't sharp and so just
1:50:01to clarify some of the discussion dr.
1:50:04connect on that if an owl grabs you like
1:50:09that and they are very strong so not
1:50:12just the cut but couldn't be grabbing
1:50:14like she said if you've ever had any
1:50:16kind of you know pray bird on your arm
1:50:21they are strong and they squeeze they
1:50:25don't they don't just slice you but
1:50:27could have been caused by that where the
1:50:29out grabs on to you so if I were to
1:50:34believe that the the towels are actually
1:50:36sharp they would still make even if it's
1:50:39a very strong sort of injury lacerations
1:50:45happen from impact their impact injuries
1:50:47where the impact is struck on the skin
1:50:49the skin is not able to stay together
1:50:53because the force was so strong that it
1:50:55actually tears and so a laceration is a
1:50:58tear and so it makes it very unlikely
1:51:02that something sharp would have been
1:51:04able to create that kind of injury very
1:51:07very interesting lasers don't by the way
1:51:09anyone noticed that the good doctor said
1:51:11I'm not in cahoots with the ow
1:51:15I thought the panel I was gonna make one
1:51:18who jokes okay is Gunpla fide by the
1:51:22questions that are coming out of oh by
1:51:25all means the theory that is there there
1:51:32are tools that are used to cause blunt
1:51:35force trauma that we cannot forget the
1:51:38fact that they did they were on a open
1:51:42wooded area if there were tools I don't
1:51:47know from what I was given if there were
1:51:49tools found at the scene but I do want
1:51:50people to remember that tools can be
1:51:53utilized to make lacerations marks on an
1:51:58individual as well we actually have a
1:52:00tool mark analysis lab where we found
1:52:04screwdrivers hammers several different
1:52:08tools that we actually can compare those
1:52:11tools and those marks that are found on
1:52:14the skull to determine how someone may
1:52:17have been killed so it's important
1:52:22another theory to this al theory is that
1:52:25there is a garden tool that is very
1:52:27similar I don't know what it's called I
1:52:30don't know the name of it but I think
1:52:32you guys have seen it but it's very
1:52:33similar to what a Talon may look like
1:52:35it's not very sharp but you know you can
1:52:39use force to make marks on the head of
1:52:44an individual but it you shouldn't
1:52:47forget that there are tools that can be
1:52:48used you know against someone as well
1:52:51very very interesting ok guys we are
1:52:55almost at 9:30 and we're going to push
1:52:57just a little bit longer I know there's
1:52:59a lot of questions in the audience here
1:53:00and we're gonna try and do a little Q&A
1:53:03real quick before we end this give me a
1:53:04show of hands anyone have a question yes
1:53:07sir and please go ahead and give us your
1:53:10name and let us know who your questions
1:53:11for my name is Hakeem um and I'm not a
1:53:15criminal defense attorney my question
1:53:19was at the point where you obtained
1:53:22information that led to the mistrial or
1:53:26I'm sorry the reversal
1:53:28and it seemed obvious and apparent that
1:53:30there was prosecute misconduct on the
1:53:35prosecution's part with did you guys
1:53:38consider filing a civil lawsuit against
1:53:41the county to get some leverage against
1:53:44them in order to back off because my
1:53:49focus was on getting him a new trial and
1:53:53frankly my focus was on Duane Deaver not
1:53:56on the prosecutors so that was not sort
1:54:01of anything that I considered the
1:54:02leverage that I used was filing two
1:54:07motions one a motion to keep out the
1:54:10bisexuality because it had all been
1:54:12found as a result of a computer search
1:54:15which the Court of Appeals in the North
1:54:18Carolina Supreme Court had ruled was
1:54:21unconstitutional but then said that the
1:54:24evidence was harmless so that would have
1:54:27been one motion that was one motion I
1:54:29filed and the second motion I file was a
1:54:32motion to reconsider the admission of
1:54:34the Germany evidence because the law in
1:54:38North Carolina had gotten more strict
1:54:41with regard to the admission of that
1:54:43kind of evidence and so we filed both of
1:54:46those motions we had a chambers
1:54:48conference the judge indicated to the
1:54:51prosecutor that he should tell Candace
1:54:54and Lori that because they were that
1:54:56hold up to trying to resolve this case
1:55:00that the second trial was probably not
1:55:03going to be the same as the first trial
1:55:05and it was at that point that they
1:55:07agreed to the to the plea so the the
1:55:11issue of prosecutorial misconduct or
1:55:14knowledge of what happened really never
1:55:15came up David have you heard from the
1:55:18judge years I'm back here way in the
1:55:21back
1:55:21have you heard from the judge years
1:55:24later how he felt about allowing those
1:55:26two pieces of evidence in well you all
1:55:27heard from the judge at the end of the
1:55:30of the documentary and like I said the
1:55:33judge was a friend of mine it you know
1:55:35still a friend of mine I've never
1:55:36stopped talking with him but
1:55:38[Music]
1:55:41you know I thought it was really
1:55:42courageous of him to actually on camera
1:55:47admit that he had made a mistake and
1:55:50indeed he went further than that and
1:55:53admitted that he had having listened to
1:55:56all the evidence a reasonable doubt and
1:55:59at the end of the day that's what this
1:56:02case is about you know you all can argue
1:56:06that he's guilty
1:56:07you can argue he's innocent the bottom
1:56:10line is was there proof beyond a
1:56:13reasonable doubt when you take all the
1:56:16evidence into account when you take into
1:56:18account you know we heard about 650
1:56:20hours and things left out there was a
1:56:22lot of evidence that we liked that was
1:56:25left out you know for example there was
1:56:28no blood on the stairway in Germany we
1:56:32had the Army CID officer who went to the
1:56:35scene who had actually compiled a
1:56:40contemporaneous report which we also had
1:56:43which we introduced into evidence when
1:56:46he testified that in fact the flashbacks
1:56:50that these women confabulated because
1:56:52they were all put together in a motel
1:56:55room in a motel area for six days before
1:56:58they ever testified didn't exist there
1:57:02was no blood on the stairs there was no
1:57:05blood on the walls there was a small
1:57:07amount of blood underneath her head by
1:57:12the way also not in the staircase was
1:57:14the fact that Walter Reed Army Hospital
1:57:16had found that she had died of a brain
1:57:18aneurysm and indeed the German doctor at
1:57:21the scene had found the same thing so
1:57:25you know the bottom line is there's lots
1:57:28of stuff left out with 650 hours and we
1:57:31can all be you know really selective
1:57:33about what we're going to say and how
1:57:36we're gonna pitch it but the bottom line
1:57:39was the judge himself having heard all
1:57:42the evidence had a reasonable doubt and
1:57:45that I think speaks volumes all right we
1:57:47have a question in the back about two
1:57:49questions and they'll be quick first of
1:57:51all has anybody ever been killed
1:57:53before I have no idea it's not it's not
1:57:56a question of killing somebody by an Al
1:57:59it's a question of is somebody scalp
1:58:02ripped apart and by the way when owls
1:58:04grab on to something like an animal
1:58:07they don't just hit them and leave the
1:58:10talons then are used to grab the skin
1:58:15and pick the at pick the animal up and
1:58:18bring it to the nest sure that's a prey
1:58:21animal yeah exactly pictum here was a
1:58:23prey animal I think if anything it was
1:58:25maybe an aggressive attack by a wild
1:58:28animal I don't think that al had it in
1:58:29mind to take her home with it well well
1:58:32that assumes a certain level of thinking
1:58:36by the owl which we won't debate well
1:58:38maybe they all went really really hungry
1:58:40but that's sort of my secondary to my
1:58:42main question here um there was a if I
1:58:46understand it correctly I apologize I
1:58:47haven't watched the show but I'm not
1:58:50sure you ought to be really asking
1:58:51questions if you haven't watched I
1:58:53skimmed it
1:58:54sacred there's a lot of lot of uh
1:58:57there's the the original theory was that
1:59:00she fell down the stairs and the
1:59:02evidence pointed to her falling down the
1:59:04stairs and hurting herself and bleeding
1:59:06out on the stairs and then the new
1:59:08theory about the owl is at the hotel al
1:59:10got her outdoors and then she bled out
1:59:13inside but wouldn't be alive had to
1:59:15attack her at the top of the stairs so
1:59:18that she could then fall down the stairs
1:59:19for what watch watch the documentary
1:59:23there was never any suggestion by
1:59:26anybody that she fell down the entire
1:59:28set of stairs
1:59:29so but the owl would have attacked her
1:59:32indoors or outdoors outdoors okay okay
1:59:36let's see if we could just because
1:59:37there's a lot of other people and we are
1:59:38almost out of time madam I'm gonna pass
1:59:41over the microphone so when you were
1:59:50referring to the difference between a
1:59:52laceration and like an incision wound is
1:59:56it positive did you look at her
1:59:58particular the reflection of like how
2:00:01the wounds were
2:00:03on that report and I guess my question
2:00:05is is it possible with the owl theory
2:00:08that with lack of an explanation from a
2:00:12coroner's perspective of how she would
2:00:14have sort of incision rooms rather than
2:00:16blunt-force trama would it be reflected
2:00:19in the report just for lack a human way
2:00:21of not understanding how you know this
2:00:23like he was saying I don't understand
2:00:25how there was feathers just your filling
2:00:28in the gaps because you don't know how
2:00:29to reflect it so the difference between
2:00:39the incised wounds and laceration is by
2:00:44calling it a laceration you're
2:00:45automatically saying it's not a sharp
2:00:47instrument and looking at looking at the
2:00:50wounds you see that there's injury and
2:00:54then underneath it there's the tissue is
2:00:56kind of ragged underneath it and so if
2:00:59it is possible that there could be a
2:01:02component of laceration but you would
2:01:04also see the incised wounds sort of
2:01:06which is a very sharp appearance of the
2:01:10wound and I was not able to appreciate
2:01:12that and the fact that the report is
2:01:15really just their their opinion of what
2:01:17they thought it was it's their notes and
2:01:21so by calling a laceration I say that
2:01:24well then that this can't be something
2:01:25sharp but also the photos the photo that
2:01:28I did see of the injury I could see that
2:01:30there wasn't any element of that looks
2:01:32sharper to me and I think we have time
2:01:35for one more question he wants like
2:01:37someone on the audience hello my name is
2:01:41also Lena cheers to you the question I
2:01:45have for you is for yeh and my question
2:01:49for you is could you tell us your
2:01:51sources or is that protected information
2:01:54god no I so there are plenty of sources
2:01:58that the BBC they did I think it's like
2:02:02an 18 series podcast which might have
2:02:06been just as long as the staircase
2:02:08itself where they consulted and I tried
2:02:12to I listened to all of it and I tried
2:02:13to be selective in
2:02:14only including things that were
2:02:17portrayed as pieces of evidence that
2:02:19were introduced at trial so I didn't
2:02:23want to go into people's harebrained
2:02:25theories about things I really just
2:02:26wanted to focus on look if you had been
2:02:28in that jury and sitting at that trial
2:02:29what would you have heard that didn't
2:02:31make its way into the documentary
2:02:33because that's what the story is it's
2:02:36not just what do you include it's what
2:02:37don't you include so so that's where I
2:02:40got most of my information and then
2:02:43reading a few other articles online but
2:02:44did I have access to all the transcripts
2:02:47from the longest trial in North Carolina
2:02:49history and did I read through all those
2:02:50no I did not and by the way if we're
2:02:54going to talk about motivation the
2:02:56motivations of the BBC people were to
2:03:00come in and undermine the documentary
2:03:04and there is much in the BBC documentary
2:03:08as there is much in Aphrodite Jones's
2:03:11book and various other books that have
2:03:14no relation to reality whatsoever
2:03:22different question all right all right
2:03:25ladies and gentlemen we have a time
2:03:28constraint
2:03:37okay last question please very quick and
2:03:41who's it to
2:03:42okay please real quick guys I didn't say
2:03:56that no no I know I just said that I
2:04:00never focused on that I never thought
2:04:02about that
2:04:03and frankly I don't prosecutors have
2:04:06immunities as we all know whether they
2:04:10should have immunities or not as a whole
2:04:12separate question but no I you know that
2:04:15wasn't my goal my goal was not to sue
2:04:18the prosecutors no I didn't say that
2:04:24somebody else said that all I said was I
2:04:27had no I had no quarrel with a bloke you
2:04:31know yeah I never said that I thought
2:04:35the prosecutors did anything wrong I may
2:04:37have thought it but I didn't say it all
2:04:39right all right
2:04:40Wow Wow Wow okay okay what an evening
2:04:50ladies and gentlemen WB a.m. CLE please
2:04:56a round of applause for the panel and
2:05:01also a round of applause for the WBA
2:05:04board Andrew Eliza's Steve are you guys
2:05:06here in the audience please stand up
2:05:09Eliza right there Andrew are you here
2:05:12Steve are you here okay well there is
2:05:15Steve right there ladies and gentleman
2:05:16WBA board we put a lot of effort into
2:05:18this and we appreciate your patronage
2:05:20fYI some of the sponsors have raffles
2:05:22they have booze and other cool things so
2:05:24you probably want to go out there and
2:05:26see if you won otherwise ladies and
2:05:28gentlemen please make sure you checked
2:05:29in on the MCL a check and sheet Daniel
2:05:31firuzan founder the Westside Bar
2:05:33Association thank you for being here
2:05:35tonight

About this transcript

This page contains the full transcript of David Rudolph of The Staircase presents explosive new theory about accused murderer Michael Peterson by NCAVF, generated from the public captions YouTube serves with the video. The transcript has 17,476 words across 2,456 segments, with the original timestamps preserved so you can click any line to jump to that moment in the embedded player.

What you can do with it

Use the transcript to take notes, quote the speaker, build a study guide, generate a summary with ChatGPT or Claude via the YouTube Summary tool, or export it as a timed subtitle file with YouTube to SRT. You can also re-open it in the transcriber to translate the transcript into 100+ languages.

Free YouTube transcript tool

YouTube2Text is a free YouTube transcript generator — no signup, no daily limit. Paste any YouTube link and get the full transcript instantly, with timestamps, click-to-jump, translation to 100+ languages, AI prompts for ChatGPT, Claude, and Gemini, and exports to TXT, SRT, VTT, or Markdown.