By John Springer
Court TV

Story Tools

DURHAM, North Carolina (Court TV) -- Who murdered Kathleen Peterson?

The question isn't overly complicated on its face. A grand jury handed up a first-degree murder indictment against Peterson's husband, author and former newspaper columnist Michael Peterson, and prosecutors either have the goods to convict him or they don't.

Murder cases that complete the long march to trial rarely are that simple, however. In the Peterson case, there is so much in dispute that the defendant's trial on a single count of first-degree murder is likely to last three months or more when it gets under way on Tuesday.

A jury of 12 and four alternates, painstakingly selected over more than seven weeks, will not only be asked to determine if prosecutors have enough evidence to find Michael Peterson guilty of murder. They will have to decipher conflicting expert testimony expected to be heard over several weeks and decide whether Kathleen Peterson's death 18 months ago was even a murder at all.

The trial has frequently been the top story in this corner of North Carolina's famous Research Triangle ever since prosecutors announced they believe Michael Peterson, now 59, killed his wife of four and a half years in the couple's million-dollar home.

Some police officers and emergency medical professionals called to 1810 Cedar St. in the wee hours of December 9, 2001, believed Kathleen Peterson fell on stairs and struck her head. But the blood that seemed to be everywhere -- the walls, the stairs and all over Michael Peterson's clothes -- caught the attention of Durham police detectives.

An autopsy seemed to confirm the suspicion some investigators had early on. The gashes in Kathleen Peterson's head, five distinct lacerations from which she bled to death, suggested to medical examiners that her death was no accident.

"It's incomprehensible," said Todd Peterson, Michael Peterson's 27-year-old son from the first of his two marriages. "Kathleen and my father had the most loving relationship. They never fought."

When opening statements are delivered, Todd Peterson will be sitting in the courtroom directly behind his father and defense lawyers David Rudolf and Thomas Maher. Seated with Todd Peterson will be two women he calls sisters, college students Martha and Margaret Ratliff. (Kathleen Peterson's adult daughter from a previous marriage, Caitlin Atwater, is suing Michael Peterson for wrongful death and is estranged from him, his sons and the Ratliff sisters.)

Michael Peterson and his first wife, Patricia Sue Peterson, became guardians of the Ratliffs in 1985 after their mother, 43-year-old school teacher Elizabeth Ratliff, was found dead at the bottom of a short flight of stairs. The Petersons were living and working in Germany at the time and Elizabeth Ratliff, a widow, was a neighbor and close friend of both.

Ratliff's death was attributed to a cerebral hemorrhage, but a second autopsy conducted just this year at the request of Durham prosecutors Jim Hardin Jr. and Freda Black concluded that Ratliff's head injuries were consistent with blunt force trauma. A North Carolina medical examiner's finding that Ratliff was the victim of "homicidal assault" reportedly led investigators in Germany to reopen the investigation into the 1985 death.

Prosecutors will not discuss the case publicly, but their evidence and theories of the case have made it into the public record bit by bit during jury selection and pretrial hearings.

Their case is a circumstantial one, with physical evidence playing a supporting role. They've also said there is evidence that the Petersons' financial situation wasn't in the order it once was, but prosecutors haven't shared much about money as a possible motive in open court.

Kathleen Peterson died when no one but her husband was home, prosecutors will argue, and her injuries were not consistent with a fall as the defense contends. They may further argue, if the judge allows it over defense objections, something similar happened to Elizabeth Ratliff in 1985 after Michael Peterson walked the neighbor home.

The defense will likely counter that the case is weak, at best, and there's no meat on a bone prosecutors won't let go of. Peterson claims through his lawyers that after a Saturday night of drinking wine near the swimming pool, Kathleen Peterson went inside the house alone and either slipped or blacked out on the dimly lit staircase, struck her head and bled to death.

Rudolf, one of the best-known defense lawyers in North Carolina, will likely highlight the absence of a murder weapon, any eyewitnesses or a compelling motive. Using experts to dispute the prosecution's forensic witnesses, including renowned forensic scientist Dr. Henry Lee, Rudolf is also likely to argue that the stairwell where Kathleen Peterson died shows no signs of the blood "cast off" patterns often created when someone is struck repeatedly with a blunt object.

"What our experts tell us happened ... is that at some point Kathleen fell backward and hit her head," Rudolf said. "She lay bleeding, gets up, steps into the pool of blood, slips and hits her head again ... She bled out."

In addition to the staircase, Michael Peterson's relationship with his wife of just a few years and his frantic demeanor when he called 911 to summon help will be key components of his defense.

"Our position is that he had absolutely nothing to do with it. It was an accident. It happened while he was [outside] the house," Rudolf said. "When you listen to that 911 tape, you can come away with nothing but a man in anguish at finding his wife in a pool of blood at the bottom of a staircase."

The defense has not decided if Michael Peterson will testify in his own defense. He doesn't have to testify, and Peterson has some minor baggage in the area of credibility. In 1999, for example, he was forced to drop a bid for mayor of Durham when it was revealed that a Purple Heart he said he earned as a Marine in Vietnam actually came from a wartime car accident in Japan.

"He's not a perfect man," Rudolf said of his client, "but does that make him capable of murdering a woman who was clearly the love of his life? I don't think so."