00:00:44
Welcome to True Crime Garage. Wherever you are, whatever you are doing, thanks for listening. I'm your host Nick and
00:00:49
with me as always is a man that tells me you should always go to other people's funerals, otherwise they won't come to
00:00:56
yours. He is the captain. Sometimes I don't even know the bloke. It's good to be seen, it's good to see
00:01:02
you. Thanks for listening. Thanks for telling a friend. Tonight we are drinking Secret Stairs by
00:01:13
Trillium Brewing Company. Garage Grade four and a quarter bottle caps out of five. Secret Stairs is Trillium's
00:01:19
signature style. It's bold, balanced and very satisfying. It's not too sweet and
00:01:24
there's a bitter cocoa hint in there which I love. And this wonderful beer was brought to us by these good folks
00:01:30
right here. First up, we have Allie and Stacy Q in parts unknown. Next we have Sarah in beautiful Cleveland,
00:01:39
Believeland, Ohio. A big cheers mates down under to Emma and Bodhi in Brisbane, Australia. And we
00:01:46
have Roslyn in San Antonio and last but not least Hawks and Doves in Raleigh, North Carolina. Thanks everybody for
00:01:53
your help with this week's shows. If you want to help us out with the beer run for next week's show, go to
00:01:58
truecrimegarage.com. And while you're there, check out our blog and check out the beautiful,
00:02:03
beautiful store page. Yeah, check out the store page. We have team Nick shirts. We had some leftovers, so we put
00:02:11
those on sale. No, they're awesome. They're not Is leftovers a bad bad word? We had some
00:02:18
leftovers and we have new team captain V-necks in stock. People asked for them. We haven't had them in stock for about a
00:02:24
year, so they're back in stock. Get one today. All right, Captain. Everybody gather around, grab a chair,
00:02:32
grab a beer. Let's talk some true crime. During the trial of Kathleen Peterson's
00:02:51
death and the attempted prosecution of her husband, Michael Peterson, the prosecution would call into question
00:02:58
Elizabeth Ratliff's death. Now, on February 18th, 2003, Elizabeth Ratliff's two daughters,
00:03:05
Margaret and Martha, now Michael Peterson's legal wards, gave the Durham District Attorney's office permission to
00:03:12
exhume their mother's body from her Texas grave. At first they were reluctant to allow this,
00:03:19
but they say they want to clear Michael Peterson's name. They were two and one years old at the time that Elizabeth
00:03:26
died. Elizabeth Ratliff was found dead November 27th, 1985. She was 43 years old. When Elizabeth's
00:03:35
husband died, Michael Peterson would come over to visit her every evening after dinner. Peterson and friends
00:03:42
maintained that their friendship was purely platonic. Often he would help her with the dishes
00:03:48
or read to Ratliff's two young daughters before returning home. Elizabeth Ratliff
00:03:53
was found tilted sideways at the bottom of a wooden staircase inside her home. German officials concluded at the time
00:04:01
that Elizabeth Ratliff Ratliff died of an apparent stroke and a criminal investigation was never conducted.
00:04:08
Reports that she was suffering severe, persistent headaches in the weeks leading up to her death were also known.
00:04:16
The coroner determined that the hemorrhaging resulted in immediate death followed by Ratliff falling down the
00:04:22
stairs after collapsing. The Petersons had dinner with Elizabeth Ratliff and her daughters.
00:04:30
And Michael Peterson had stayed that night to help Ratliff put the kids to bed before going home. Mhm. The
00:04:38
children's nanny, Barbara, discovered Elizabeth's body when she arrived the next morning at the home. Yeah, roughly
00:04:45
about 11:00 a.m. Michael Peterson was the last known person to see her alive. Now, before Michael Peterson's trial,
00:04:53
the Durham, North Carolina court ordered the exhumation of Elizabeth Ratliff's embalmed body buried in Texas for a
00:05:01
second autopsy. Uh the body was then transported from Texas to Durham. The Durham medical
00:05:08
examiner found sufficient evidence to drawn from the results of the second autopsy, along with new witness
00:05:15
statements describing the scene, to overturn the earlier findings and list Elizabeth Ratliff's cause of death as a
00:05:24
homicide. State medical examiner's report states that Elizabeth Ratliff died of blunt
00:05:30
force trauma to the head. The autopsy reported several lacerations and fractures to the skull. Now, the
00:05:38
prosecution declined to accuse Michael Peterson of Elizabeth Ratliff's death, Mhm. but introduced the death into the
00:05:48
trial as an incident giving Michael Peterson the idea of how to fake Kathleen Peterson's
00:05:57
accident. Now, Regina Green, an old family friend of Michael Peterson's, pointed out in
00:06:04
the Staircase mini-series how much Elizabeth Ratliff and Peterson's wife looked alike. So, let me get this
00:06:13
straight. They do one autopsy at the time of her death. They say that she had a stroke, then she fell down the stairs.
00:06:20
Mhm. That would probably be the cause her falling down the stairs would be the cause of the trauma to the head. Then
00:06:27
they dig her up. They do a new exam. And then they say there's blunt force trauma and that is the reason why she
00:06:35
died. Yes. And then on top of that, now we have a a friend saying, "Isn't it strange how much she looked
00:06:44
like his wife?" Yes. Which wife? The wife at the time? I believe that she was talking
00:06:50
about Kathleen Peterson who he's later being accused of killing. Mhm. And what's interesting to me there is
00:06:59
I saw I'm not going to lie to you, man. I I saw similarities. Actually, to the point somebody put it on one website a a
00:07:05
side-by-side picture of the two. And I didn't know in advance that I was going to be looking at a side-by-side picture
00:07:13
of two different people. I almost thought it was just Kathleen Peterson at two different points in her
00:07:19
life. Maybe with a slightly different hairstyle or, you know, at one event dressed otherwise. You know, You know,
00:07:26
all white people look the same. So, well, it's a problem. Mhm. And so, the thing is, to me,
00:07:34
they in those two pictures that I saw, they could pass as sisters. Right. Very, very much like one another. Now,
00:07:43
regarding what does it mean though? I don't know that it means I don't know that it means anything. But the thing
00:07:49
is, here's here's the interesting thing that I find here, Mhm. is this is kind of a reversal of what the defense would
00:07:56
do. So, the defense all along in this trial is letting the prosecution point out to you something that they say is
00:08:05
suspicious. And when they present it to you, on the surface, it appears to be just that, suspicious. Then when the
00:08:14
defense comes in, gives you some more information, questions some of that suspicious
00:08:20
behavior or suspicious evidence, then you're left going, "Well, it doesn't seem so suspicious at all." They
00:08:26
basically question everything. They're throwing everything at the wall, the defense, to see what sticks sticks, to
00:08:32
see if any of the jury or all of the jury can go, "You know what? We have plenty of reason to doubt this man's
00:08:39
guilt." Here, we have the prosecution doing the opposite. You know, they're they're
00:08:45
fighting fire with fire, essentially. They're stating, "Look, we have this woman that died and he was she was very
00:08:52
close to Michael Peterson, died almost in the same way. And we're going to exhume her body
00:08:59
He's the last person to see her. He's the last person to see her. She's found at the bottom of a staircase.
00:09:05
And we're going to exhume her body and then we're going to tell you that there were so many similarities in these two
00:09:11
that kind of they're not saying this directly, but what the seed that they are planting in all of these people, in
00:09:18
my opinion, to see if the tree grows, is that, "Well, if you can believe that he
00:09:23
killed one of them, then maybe you have to believe that he killed both of them."
00:09:27
Yeah, the tricky thing here is I believe the initial autopsy found that Ratliff died
00:09:35
in the morning. So, where he would have saw her at night, it would have been probably 11:00
00:09:40
p.m. before he left, that they believe that she actually died in the morning. And he would have an alibi at the time
00:09:47
and that would that alibi would be his current wife at that time. Well, I'll tell you what, man. Watching The
00:09:54
Staircase the first time, and I do have to um point out something here. It I don't
00:10:02
remember when, but a while back we did um some we recommended some docu uh docu series, some true crime
00:10:12
documentaries to watch to our audience, and we did come under fire a little bit because we didn't mention The Staircase.
00:10:19
Now, it At the time I haven't watched it, so You hadn't watched it, and at the time
00:10:25
for me, I watched it when it came out on HBO the first time. I believe it was HBO. And it was so many years before
00:10:33
that we put that list together. I didn't I wouldn't say I forgot about it, but I think I forgot how good it
00:10:39
was, how good the um documentary was. And so it didn't make my list for those reasons. But I do recall when they
00:10:49
brought up this whole Elizabeth Ratliff thing when I watched it the first time, and they're like,
00:10:54
"We have two women close to this individual that died in almost the same manner 16 years apart." Well, [ __ ] that
00:11:02
did it for me, Captain. Well, the documentary's called The Staircase. Now we have two women that died in the
00:11:08
staircase. So, yeah, first of all, I should get a championship belt because you know, we only have a week to work on
00:11:18
these cases. I think I put out um Wednesday's show, put it out last Wednesday. Went home,
00:11:27
had lunch, started binging The Staircase. I was done with The Staircase by Thursday. Mhm.
00:11:35
I mean, that's like a record. I should get a championship belt for a guy that can sit on the couch
00:11:42
and watch 14 hours of a true crime documentary. And I I was all by myself. I'm going to start taking
00:11:50
applications for people that want to watch documentaries with me. Well, like I said, the first time I
00:11:55
watched it, I thought for me that was like, all right, that tipped me over the edge. This guy's guilty.
00:12:00
Okay. At first I was like, yes, this guy he was the last person to see the one lady, she's dead on a staircase. He's
00:12:10
the last person to see his wife, she's dead on a staircase. Yeah. Not good. The problem again that I
00:12:19
have with it is based off the evidence of the first case, one, she had severe, not just kind of headaches, she had
00:12:27
severe headaches. Mhm. She was going to go see a specialist or see a specialist again Yeah, I think because of this. Was
00:12:34
that scheduled for that week, or it was scheduled for very shortly before she died? And and the Or shortly after.
00:12:40
Right. And the initial autopsy, which the second autopsy, they would not have the brain.
00:12:46
Right. Right. So they could not see the hemorrhaging. So you can tell me all you want about uh
00:12:52
fractures or brain bruising or whatever you want to say, but you don't have all the
00:12:58
information. And so the first one saw severe brain swelling, which could also cause brain
00:13:05
bruising, which heck, for all you the fractures probably came from falling down the steps.
00:13:12
But the thing that I have a hard time with is when there there was no rigor mortis.
00:13:17
Therefore, meaning that when everybody it wasn't First of all, Michael Peterson didn't
00:13:22
find her. Somebody else found her. Nanny found her. He didn't call 911 and say, "Oh my
00:13:27
god." It's not the same scenario. Right. The nanny found her. He came over to help. Everybody else was helping. There
00:13:34
was a bunch of people there, a bunch of eyewitnesses. And they moved the body, and there was
00:13:39
no rigor mortis. And so uh And again, then if you're going to you're a writer, you're a creative person, you're a known
00:13:52
liar. If you really wanted to kill your wife, are you going to do so in the same
00:13:57
manner Right. that you possibly killed somebody before? Okay, well, but again, that goes back to
00:14:05
the whole thought for me of premeditation, right? So if your argument as the state's case would be
00:14:12
that he in a fit of rage during the course of an argument lost his scruples and killed his wife, Mhm. Kathleen
00:14:20
Peterson, Mhm. you would also have to argue that if you believe that Elizabeth Ratliff in 1985 was as beat to death as
00:14:28
well, that that would be a similar similar circumstance where he lost it, he attacked her, and beat her to death.
00:14:35
Both of those situations do not imply premeditation. Both of those imply that it was a spur of the moment attack. By
00:14:43
his mother. It was heat of the moment. So again, But the but the other issue here though
00:14:51
is if we have somebody that was {quote} beat to death that has fractures, brain bruising, and you're going to tell me
00:14:59
that this individual It's It's not like he's a Yeah, he's a writer. He's not a huge man.
00:15:08
But in both cases you should see skull fractures. You should see brain bruising. You do not see that in both
00:15:17
cases. And also, in the first case with Ratliff, they think that she actually fell from higher up on the steps.
00:15:26
Right. So if she falls higher up on the steps, there's more chances that she's going to have
00:15:32
uh fractures in her skull because of the fall. And and then and um Kathleen's case, falling
00:15:39
not as far down. So therefore you wouldn't have the fractures. So I guess the thing that's lost on me, because the
00:15:46
prosecution didn't they weren't able to point this out, because again, they're not going to accuse Michael Peterson of
00:15:52
Elizabeth Ratliff's death. But the thing that's lost on me is is what are you what are you trying to tell
00:15:58
me that this means? Are you trying to tell me that it happened once, so and he did it, and
00:16:03
therefore he's capable? Okay, I get that. But don't try to tell me that it happened once, it was not premeditated,
00:16:11
then he kills his second wife, it's not premeditated, and that that means he knew how to do it exactly this way
00:16:16
because he didn't plan to kill the first person this way. Right. You know, so I guess that portion
00:16:21
is lost on me. The interesting thing here though, Captain, I believe that they in attempt to try to tie these together
00:16:29
and to point out that Michael Peterson, if you believe he killed one, then you must believe he
00:16:35
killed both, Mhm. is that they try to point out, I think it was 17 points of similarity between the two incidents.
00:16:45
I would argue that if you can find 17 things that were the same, you could find a minimum of 17 things that were
00:16:53
different. Right. If not many, many more. It wasn't his wife. The two The two I think the two is It
00:17:00
wasn't his house. Right. call 911. He didn't have any evidence of blood on him. One case has fractures, one doesn't. One
00:17:10
has brain bruising, one doesn't. One has brain hemorrhaging, one doesn't. One, the person that falls down the steps has
00:17:18
a history or a believed um uh physical condition condition. One doesn't, but one
00:17:28
we believe is intoxicated and also probably And the the other thing too, is if you
00:17:34
look at it, in one case we have blood, some kind of blood evidence outside of the house, one
00:17:43
where we don't really know if we have any blood evidence other than in the staircase. Mhm.
00:17:49
So I think it's when we say eyewitness statements uh regarding the scene had changed as well in Elizabeth Ratliff's
00:17:57
death or the account of what could have happened, Mhm. really all that we have is we have one person who claims to have
00:18:05
seen Michael Peterson {quote} fleeing the scene that night. Well, first of all, uh you would you would have seen him
00:18:14
leaving. Mhm. Can you can you imply his intentions of and in the manner that he's leaving? What Maybe he's in a hurry
00:18:23
to get home for any number of reasons. So that and then the similarities, the 17 similarities, which again, I think
00:18:30
for every similarity you could point out a difference, if not a big difference. Right. And the motive would be that his
00:18:37
friend had some money, and that therefore he would assume that the money would have been left to him.
00:18:43
Uh he probably knew at some point that if something did happen to her, he was going to become the guardian of her
00:18:50
children. But you got to be pretty sick to be like, "I'm going to murder you, then I'm going to take your money,
00:19:00
and I'm going to raise your kids." Yeah. That's it's just a stretch. Well, and these girls grew up to love him.
00:19:08
It's not like they grew up and there are always this shadow of doubt that, "Oh, he killed our mother." You know, there's
00:19:15
I mean, you got to be a pretty big psychopath to Not a psychopath, that wouldn't be
00:19:22
the correct term, but you get You got to be pretty nuts to be able to kill somebody,
00:19:28
raise their kids in a loving home, and and have them be very intelligent, be very kind, respectful, be upstanding
00:19:38
citizens. That's Well, I had somebody tell me that because he adopted the two girls, that
00:19:46
is proof to them that he didn't kill their mother. Mhm. I I see that side of the coin.
00:19:52
The this the opposite but Right. The opposite side of the coin which I would actually present is maybe
00:19:59
he did kill their mother and him taking care of the children is a sign of remorse. That he felt bad for he did
00:20:07
something in a split second. He can't take it back, but what he can do is make sure that these kids are raised in a
00:20:14
loving home. But what I do point out again is we don't have these daughters going Yeah, he was a violent father.
00:20:20
Right. You know, we don't have any of that. That could have happened behind closed doors. We don't know, but we
00:20:25
don't saying that. We We don't have any friends saying that. We don't have any family members
00:20:29
saying that. a great guy. He's a great father. Mhm. And and there's evidence of that in
00:20:34
the documentary just the way he enact he interacts with his kids. More so and spoiler alert more so before he goes
00:20:44
to jail. Right. So um I think afterwards I think he's definitely different. But obviously he's
00:20:52
older. He spent time in prison. He slowed down and which is obvious. Mhm. And you know what I think you are 100%
00:21:01
spot-on regarding this incident of Elizabeth Ratliff's death and then Kathleen Peterson's death Mhm. is
00:21:09
the medical examiner. The first autopsy and then 16, is that right? 16 or roughly 17 or 18 years later the second
00:21:20
autopsy takes place on Elizabeth Ratliff. Right. And so what you are spot-on in saying is that
00:21:27
you are not examining the same set of evidence 16, 17 years later. Right. In my opinion. And I think that I
00:21:36
not just as a fact. And I have a hard time believing that you can completely reverse everything
00:21:43
that was believed to have been found in the first autopsy 16, 17 years later when you're not looking at the same
00:21:52
same piece of evidence. Hold on, let me go through my notes real quick. Looks like the examiner was
00:22:00
Fahmy Malak. Oh. Oh, that's why. That's why they reversed it. Old Fahmy Malak. It was an ulcer.
00:22:08
No, so now we're at the point Are are we at the point now that he gets tried and he is found guilty?
00:22:18
Well, yeah. Real quick, I want to kind of put my my final stamp on my final thought regarding Elizabeth Ratliff.
00:22:24
Mhm. Okay. Where at first when I was watching The Staircase many years ago when it
00:22:28
first came out, I jumped off off of the couch and I went, "That's it. He did it.
00:22:32
He's guilty. He's guilty. I got him. POS. I'm done. You sex son of a [ __ ] And now years later having
00:22:42
looked at it under a different light, under a different microscope, and putting together information for this
00:22:47
week's case I didn't realize back then that it was ruled that she had a stroke. And so I
00:22:53
look at it now and I go I I can't say with 100% certainty that he didn't kill her, but I can say with
00:23:00
about 99%. Yeah. I feel pretty strong that he didn't kill Elizabeth Ratliff. And I think it has no
00:23:06
bearing on if or not he killed Kathleen Peterson. I agree. I also think that it comes down to there's evidence of a
00:23:14
stroke where they believe there was a stroke, hemorrhaging of the brain. There is a lot of
00:23:20
skull fractures. I believe that happened from her falling down the steps. And I think the lack of rigor mortis and the
00:23:27
the idea that there was so many eyewitnesses that found her body, saw how he was reacting, and then taking her
00:23:34
daughters and raising her um again has no bearing on whether he killed his wife or not. Well, after more
00:23:42
than 3 and 1/2 months of trial, Captain, the jury would finally decide the fate of Michael Peterson. Now, among the
00:23:48
jurors, we had an accountant, a correctional officer, two retail sales people, a shipping coordinator, two
00:23:55
computer operations specialists, and a telecommunications analyst, and three nurses. So two people studied computer.
00:24:03
Okay. They originally took a vote to see where everyone stood. And it turned out
00:24:08
that they were pretty much divided. Four guilty, four people stating he's guilty,
00:24:13
three stating not guilty, and five undecided. They went over the case again. After hours of debate, they kept
00:24:21
coming back to one single exhibit, the autopsy photos of the back of Kathleen Peterson's head. Mhm. A juror
00:24:30
contacted after the trial noted that the jury dismissed the idea of the blow poke
00:24:36
as the murder weapon. By and large, the jurors were swayed by the amount of blood Kathleen lost and the number of
00:24:44
lacerations which indicated to them it could not have been an accident. So on October 10th, 2003,
00:24:53
a Durham County jury found Michael Peterson guilty of the murder of Kathleen Peterson. He was sentenced to
00:24:59
life in prison without the possibility of parole. Denial of parole requires premeditation. Despite the jury
00:25:06
accepting the murder was a {quote} spur of the moment crime, they also found it was premeditated. One juror explained
00:25:15
premeditated meant not only planning hours or days ahead, but could also mean planning in seconds in the seconds
00:25:23
before committing a spur of the moment crime. All right. Cheers, mates. Cheers to you,
00:25:58
Captain. hot in the garage, so I'm switching over to Proper Twelve whiskey. Well, I'll tell you what. So we This is
00:26:07
the point in the show where we have to kind of speed whiskey. We have to speed through a
00:26:11
couple of things because this part is necessary to report, but there's a lot of minutia. There's a lot of dry, boring
00:26:19
stuff that takes place over the course of several years to get to the final result. So we're going to give you the
00:26:27
short of it. The quick We're going to give you the quick and dirty version, okay? We're going to give you the
00:26:30
quickie. So remember the prosecution had a blood spatter expert who gave testimony
00:26:37
against Michael Peterson at his trial. Well, that guy was Duane Deaver. And Deaver Deaver. He is a Deaver. Well,
00:26:46
Deaver was fired from the SBI Don't be a Deaver. in January of 2011 after an independent audit of the agency
00:26:57
found he had falsely represented evidence in 34 cases. Deaver, as we stated, testified in the
00:27:05
2003 Michael Peterson trial. So this is going to cause a big problem for the prosecution and for the conviction
00:27:15
of Michael Peterson. Yeah, and there was actually jury members that came forward
00:27:19
saying a lot of their turning from a not guilty to guilty was based off of this guy's
00:27:25
testimony. Correct. So we have all these court proceedings that take place that are going to challenge the court's
00:27:34
ruling, the jury's ruling that he should be convicted and sent to life in prison
00:27:39
without the possibility of parole. Mhm. They're basically asking for it to be overturned, for the conviction to be
00:27:45
overturned. In turn, the judge is going to state, "Well, we probably should just have a
00:27:52
new trial. Right. We should We could get rid of this evidence. We could re-examine what can
00:27:57
be allowed at the new trial, and we should just go from there." So like with any situation or most
00:28:04
situations they're going to allow Michael Peterson to be released from Durham County Jail
00:28:10
on a $300,000 bail and placed under house house arrest with a tracking anklet in while he waits for this new
00:28:19
trial to take place. Right. So again, there's more fighting of whether there should be a trial. Can we
00:28:25
just get this dismissed or no, there should be a new trial. On November 14th, 2016,
00:28:31
a new trial was scheduled to begin on May 8th of 2017. However, news reports in February of
00:28:39
2017 indicated that a resolution had been negotiated by Peterson's defense and the Durham County DA. Yeah, and
00:28:48
let's let's back this up a little bit. I I just want to They had a bunch of hearings
00:28:53
whether to not let certain things in. And basically Peterson got his ass handed to him on the last hearing.
00:29:01
Right. And and so they didn't want to try to make a deal with the DA or didn't think
00:29:07
it was time to ask for a deal. But oddly, the DA came after him and said, "Hey, we'd like to
00:29:15
offer you this deal." Right. So then then it was up to him to take that deal. So what took place then was
00:29:21
in February of 2017, Michael Peterson entered an Alford plea, a guilty plea whereby the defendant asserts his
00:29:30
innocent Mhm. innocence, but admits that sufficient evidence exists to convict him of the offense.
00:29:37
This was a plea to involuntary I'm sorry, voluntary manslaughter of Kathleen Peterson. The judge sentenced
00:29:46
him to a maximum of 86 86 months in prison with credit for time served. So, what does this mean? This means that
00:29:55
Michael says yes, I'm guilty. Yes, the time that I served already is warranted. Meaning I can't sue the
00:30:06
state for putting me in jail. It's also but he's also stating I didn't do this. Mhm. So, it's
00:30:15
off the record stating I didn't do this. Yes, I but I Well, no, I think it's on the record. I mean, with they they they
00:30:21
they make the deal, but they get to make a statement in court. Yeah, sorry. I mean, I I just
00:30:27
you know, this is a way this is difficult cuz I don't think Michael Peterson wanted to take this
00:30:34
deal. Uh but at the same time, he's getting older. So, he's going to go through another 2 and 1/2 year trial.
00:30:40
Mhm. Uh I don't think it would have been as long of a trial as the last one. Mhm.
00:30:45
But so, that's becomes difficult and he and then your whole family has supported
00:30:50
you and I I believe one of his daughters actually said if we take this deal it's
00:30:56
almost like we did all this for nothing. Right. And and I believe that's how you would feel. I think on on
00:31:05
his standpoint, too, I think the other thing you have to because you wonder the psyche of why they're
00:31:11
taking this deal. I think one, he knew that if he's innocent the injustice was done
00:31:18
before. And but if but whether or not he's innocent or guilty he still might go to jail
00:31:27
for the second time and he'd go away for life. And he would you know, so he's been in jail for all these years. He
00:31:33
gets out. I think that there becomes a bigger fear of ever wanting to go back in. Well, he's what? 70 years old now
00:31:40
roughly? Well, and also the money. He doesn't have as much money. So, If any. where is he going to get this
00:31:46
money to pay for good attorneys? And his attorney that he paid pretty good money the first time His last name's
00:31:54
Rudolph. Yeah, he's getting to the point where he's like, I can try to help you,
00:31:58
but you don't have the financial means to pay me. Not only that, I think at this point Rudolph was in a different
00:32:05
city. Um so, it probably got difficult for him to travel in and out. money. Right.
00:32:10
And if you're not getting paid what you should get paid, I totally understand. I
00:32:13
think you Look, I'll just say it. I watched the documentary when I heard that there was
00:32:20
two women that were dead in similar circumstances. I was like, okay, well, that seems fishy. And then
00:32:29
I'm watching the trial and yes, the documentary is from the defense standpoint. So, you get to see more of
00:32:35
that. But when it came time to read the verdict, the initial verdict, and they said guilty, I was like,
00:32:42
what? And now this is a pretty popular documentary, but I just never seen it. I mean, I was
00:32:49
shocked. Like, not saying that I think that he's innocent or guilty. What I'm stating is I didn't think
00:32:56
the state proved their point. But again you're watching a documentary from the defense point. There's so many things
00:33:03
that are left out of these documentaries. If you're watching something like uh If you let's say you're watching a
00:33:13
Making a Murderer and you can say that somebody's guilty or innocent based on just that
00:33:18
documentary? It's a documentary. There a lot of it is informative, but a lot of it
00:33:26
is skewed. Is skewed. And it's just like it's just like when people say to me uh when they talk about the Adnan Syed
00:33:33
case, whether he they say he's guilty or innocent, and I go what information have you looked up? I
00:33:40
listened to Serial. It doesn't start there. That's just one person's perception of that. That's just
00:33:47
one telling of the case. So, I think in this case, it becomes difficult because they show so much of the defense
00:33:56
that you start almost siding with him. Not saying that he's innocent or guilty, but you you're saying that they're
00:34:01
putting on a good enough defense that they should say not guilty. I agree. I absolutely agree. I don't
00:34:08
think that the prosecution put together that great of a case. Actually, when I looked at the evidence in the the
00:34:14
evidence that they presented in the light that they presented it Mhm. I found it difficult for me to unders- I
00:34:21
understand their theory that there's an argument. I think there are things that point to that
00:34:27
being very plausible and that at some point he killed her. The problem is where you can't push me over the top to
00:34:35
saying that he's guilty is they're a little unclear and a little weird about the actual cause of death.
00:34:44
And they're 100% weird and uncertain of the time of death. And that for me didn't put together that great of a
00:34:52
case. I think that if they had not dropped the ball on those items, they could have probably persuaded me to
00:34:58
state that he's guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. But but the thing is, I think what they
00:35:06
relied on and it's got to be obvious to so many people, they think or thought and
00:35:12
rightfully so, they were successful in that, that look, if we put together a that states that we think that he killed
00:35:21
her and this is why and this is how it happened, we don't have to prove that so much as that we can prove he's bisexual,
00:35:29
he was going outside of the marriage whether she knew or not. Mhm. Um we can prove that somebody close
00:35:34
to him died in a similar way 17 years ago. And we have a blood spatter expert who's going to say, this was a homicide.
00:35:43
Everything that I see at the crime scene tells me she was beat to death. And I think that they knew that that was those
00:35:51
three things were two they were two big of boulders Yeah. for for the jury to get over and it was going to completely
00:35:59
lead them back to a guilty verdict at some point. Yeah, I think simply their thought was,
00:36:05
we just have to prove that this was not an accident and then they'll find him guilty. Right. So, let's get to a
00:36:13
theory. So, again, I just watched this last week. If you haven't watched it, you got to
00:36:19
watch it. I thought it was pretty good. Uh the new episodes they added to it, I everybody said, ah they're a little
00:36:26
lackluster. You get to kind of see what happens that you know, he takes the plea
00:36:31
deal and that's it. That's the end of it. Um but they're kind of wasted episodes, I really think. They
00:36:38
could have condensed it down more. And um but I thought it was a pretty good documentary. But then
00:36:46
uh we were talking on the phone last week and he said well, what about the owl theory?
00:36:51
Yeah. And I was like, wait a second, we can't talk about it cuz I haven't I haven't done any research on it.
00:36:56
So, get let's get into the owl theory. Well, like I said, I have a problem stating that Michael Peterson's
00:37:03
innocent. Um I can't say that 100%. And but I also can't say that he's guilty 100% in my
00:37:10
mind. But then you add the owl theory into this and it it throws everything. It throws everything for me. Because it's
00:37:18
interesting. It's interesting. So, the theory is that Kathleen Peterson's death um was caused by an attack by an owl
00:37:26
outside. And this actually was a theory that one of their neighbors came up with. Yeah,
00:37:31
so that she was attacked by an owl outside of her home in the front of the house. Remember there was a blood
00:37:37
droplet or two found on the walkway and then we have a small blood smear on the front door. Mhm. This is her blood.
00:37:44
So, what was pointed out, the owl theory was raised by Durham attorney T. Lawrence Pollard. He's a neighbor of the
00:37:51
Petersons who was not involved in the case, but had been following the details of the case. He approached the police
00:38:00
suggesting that an owl might have been responsible after reading the North Carolina State Bureau of Investigation
00:38:07
evidence list and finding a feather listed on the evidence list. Now, Peterson's attorneys had determined
00:38:17
that the SBI crime lab report listed a microscopic owl feather Mhm. and a wooden sliver from a tree limb entangled
00:38:26
in a clump of hair that had been pulled out of by the roots found clutched in Kathleen's left hand. A re-examination
00:38:36
of the hair in September of 2008 had found two more microscopic owl feathers. Okay, and so we have these microscopic
00:38:44
owl feathers. Now but you know, let's so we're not spending 3 hours on this. One
00:38:51
it could be from an owl. The other thing that possibly is the if they have certain types of feather pillows that
00:38:59
this could be the reason why they would find a microscopic fiber of an owl feather in her hair.
00:39:05
Correct. So, but you're talking about the the branch in her hand? So, there was an owl feather and um a
00:39:15
basically like a little splinter of a piece of wood that would have come from a tree outside of the home. And this was
00:39:23
found These items were found in the hair that had been pulled out from the root of her scalp Mhm. that was later found
00:39:31
in her hand, clutched in her hand. She was holding her hair. She was holding portions of her hair.
00:39:37
Okay. So, one the idea at first when I hear this idea I think this is ridiculous because I'm starting
00:39:46
to think that she's walking into her house, she gets into the staircase, and then she's attacked by an owl. And
00:39:53
that's what I thought it was. And my idea was then wouldn't the owl, after the owl attacked her, wouldn't the owl
00:40:01
leave more evidence that the owl was in the house? But this theory is is actually that she
00:40:06
was attacked by an owl out front. out front. Away from Michael Peterson. If this went
00:40:12
down the way that they think, she would have been in front of the house, he would have been back by the pool. And he
00:40:17
we've already determined the the size of their yard, their property, and their home. It was proven that at certain
00:40:24
points from that property and from that home, if you're in one area, you can't hear somebody screaming in another area.
00:40:31
Yeah, and and again, now let's let's put this in perspective. When people see the
00:40:35
lacer- Okay, when people see the lacerations on her head, right? They start assuming that those
00:40:42
were made by an owl. Now, that's kind of what the owl theory is, but that's where
00:40:48
you'd be a dummy because if you actually saw lacerations that were put onto females' heads, males' heads, any kind
00:40:55
of laceration that was made by an owl, her lacerations were inches long. These are centimeters. These are tiny
00:41:05
lacerations that are made by an owl. Now, there's zero deaths by owl attacks a year. Zero. Right.
00:41:14
So, but here's where you have to put this in perspective. Again, I thought the owl theory was ridiculous. She's
00:41:20
outside. She is attacked by an owl. A typical attack. A couple small lacerations on her face
00:41:29
that nobody can explain. Not any examiner can explain the little tiny lacerations on her forehead.
00:41:38
You can't explain the the feather other than maybe a pillow, and you can't explain the little splinter of wood
00:41:45
that's in her hair. So, owl attacks her, leaves a couple marks, she's disoriented, she's drunk, she's on
00:41:54
Valium. She then decides, I got to get in the house. I leave the blood outside and on the
00:42:01
door. I need I'm going to go upstairs, right? When you go to go upstairs, you're
00:42:08
bleeding a little bit, but you're still intoxicated, and then you fall. Mhm. And then the falls that were determined
00:42:16
by the defense eyewitness or not eyewitness, but the expert witness, um with the biomechanics,
00:42:24
then all that stuff makes sense. Mhm. And then it also makes sense why she's holding a
00:42:29
piece of her hair. Mhm. So, that's to me would make the owl's the owl theory make sense.
00:42:37
Yeah, yeah, the theory the way that it that I understand it is that look, it it's a barred owl.
00:42:43
Um and apparently these attacks, I've been told, are not uncommon in that area. And that
00:42:52
there were these types of owls located on their property or near their property. There were many people in the
00:42:59
area that had stated that they had some kind of encounter with a barred owl before. Some of them saying they had
00:43:06
even been attacked. Now, under this theory, Kathleen's attack by this owl would be a little more violent than
00:43:12
traditional, um meaning that they think that if she somehow encountered this owl,
00:43:20
that the owl came became entangled in her hair. And that she would have reached up
00:43:26
naturally reached up behind her to try to defend herself, and at which the owl could not get away, is not deliberately
00:43:33
clawing her, but basically claw- clawing the back of her head. Right. And the the contusions or the cuts on
00:43:41
the front of her head, on her forehead, and I believe just below her eye, would have been the beak of the owl. So,
00:43:49
picture the talons, the feet of the owl on the back of the head, she's reaching up toward the owl, and then the owl is
00:43:56
bending forward and trying to defend itself pecking her in the front of the the face.
00:44:01
Right. And so, therefore, at some point they break up. You know, the owl gets away, she goes running inside naturally,
00:44:08
Mhm. leaving a little bit of blood along the way, and then the injury is so great that she loses
00:44:15
her footing or falls backwards on the stairs as you had said. You know what's weird about this though,
00:44:22
Captain? For me, is that I feel like this while on the surface seems like a crazy
00:44:30
theory, Mhm. I don't think I can discredit it 100%. It it it seems plausible. It seems something that
00:44:37
that's possible. Well, the the thing in this case is you have to explain things. You have to
00:44:42
explain why there's blood droplets on the front porch, why there's blood on the front door. You have to explain
00:44:48
that. And this theory explains that. It does. And it also explains why she has a chunk
00:44:55
of her hair in her hand. Right. Uh because if that was entangled I would but again, I think you would
00:45:04
find more evidence of an owl if she was really that wrapped up and that entangled because we still
00:45:12
the the other thing too is we still have those impact marks. That's science. You have to explain
00:45:20
those impact marks on the frame, the door frame. So, Well, she could have still hit those
00:45:28
portions Right, right. fell as a result of a of an owl attack, but where I have an issue with this theory,
00:45:35
not to say that it didn't happen. The problem with it is there wasn't there wasn't really a chance to prove
00:45:44
this theory or disprove this theory. Meaning, what I mean by that is it wasn't until years later that somebody
00:45:50
came up with this theory. The defense never came up with this theory. They thought, like you said, that maybe that
00:45:55
feather came from a a down comforter or down pillow. Well, and actually the the his new
00:46:00
defense team actually looked into this theory, and they were thought there's just too many holes in
00:46:06
holes in the theory for us to even use it as a defense. Okay. So, and and that's
00:46:11
you know, yes, we're into true crime, we know a lot of stuff, but you think his lawyers would
00:46:18
be the ones to tell you, "Hey, there's too many holes in this this theory, so we couldn't use it."
00:46:23
Well, the other thing too, even if it didn't come from a pillow or a comforter or something like that that was already
00:46:28
inside the home, what about the you know, the the prosecution doesn't get a chance to disprove this theory either
00:46:34
because it wasn't presented. And what I mean by that is had this been a theory the night of when they're collecting
00:46:40
evidence the night of and in the morning after, well, they could have potentially combed Michael Peterson's
00:46:47
hair and said, "Well, we found the same feathers, microscopic feath- feathers in
00:46:51
his hair. Well, where did these come from? Maybe they came from the backs of the chairs that they were sitting on
00:46:56
outside." But but again, the the reason why I do like this theory is it it explains the blood outside the
00:47:05
house, but it also explains these little lacerations that nobody's No expert witness, whether it's coming from the
00:47:12
defense or the prosecution, can explain these little tiny lacerations. So, that's one reason that makes me go,
00:47:20
"Hmm, maybe this is not such a dumb idea." I'll give you the little tiny lacerations. The other thing though is
00:47:27
the blood out front of the house and the blood on the doorway could have also come from a blood-soaked Michael
00:47:32
Peterson who just attacked his wife from behind and beat her to death and decided
00:47:37
to run out front for some reason or Or hold on, let me play devil's advocate. reason.
00:47:42
He goes in and finds his wife, and he calls 911, and he's waiting around. A lot of people argue too, "Oh, when he
00:47:50
calls 911, he doesn't sound like he's by her body." And most people that call 911
00:47:55
are by the the person's body that had the accident. Not always true. I think it becomes fight or flight. He's
00:48:02
also drunk. Maybe he had to get out of the room. "Oh my god, I can't take this. Got to get out of the room."
00:48:09
Whether he is the cause of her injuries or not the cause of his her injuries, he
00:48:15
is covered in blood. He at some point takes off his shoes. Is it possible cuz now he's not his feet
00:48:21
don't have any blood. Is it possible that he walks outside to see if the ambulance is there yet and leaves a
00:48:27
little blood on on the So, whether he was guilty or not, that would explain the evidence outside.
00:48:35
Yes, and I agree with you 100%. I mean, you as much as you want to stay there and tend to the victim and try to help
00:48:43
her along, at the same point you're going to be wondering, "Hey, if these people show up to potentially save her
00:48:48
life at the last minute, I better make sure the front door is unlocked Right. or or
00:48:55
and open and open. yeah, or you're panicking, and you just run to the front door and to see if
00:49:00
they're there. Right. So, I mean, that's not that far-fetched. All right, did he do it, Captain? Boom.
00:49:06
Hit you hit you hard with that, didn't I? Did he do it? It's tough, isn't it? It's
00:49:11
I mean, this is actually probably Do you think it's the toughest? one of the toughest did he do it. How
00:49:19
many times have you changed your mind roughly in the past? Never. Okay. But that's cuz
00:49:25
That's pretty solid. But that's cuz I'm never made up my mind. Oh. So, it's I don't think there was enough evidence
00:49:34
to convict him, but I, you know, um I don't know. And And I think the things are one that
00:49:44
they show how some of those lacerations would have came onto her head based off the biomechanics.
00:49:51
So, I believe that. But I can't figure out did she accidentally fall? Which she had enough
00:49:58
volume and alcohol in her system that she could have fell? Mhm. And that would have be That would be a
00:50:04
plausible explanation. And people say, "Well, there's a lot of blood." Well, you're a little bit older, your skin's a
00:50:10
little bit thinner, especially on your scalp, you bleed a lot. Mhm. Especially if you have that high of alcohol levels,
00:50:19
you're going to have thinner blood. I mean, I I I got a tattoo one time after days after drinking. Mhm.
00:50:26
And I mean, the guy who told me two or three times, I might have to stop. I mean, you were
00:50:31
You bleed all over the place. And see, he was like, just some people bleed differently. So, is it possible
00:50:35
that she hit her head and then it caused all that blood, which caused her to slip
00:50:39
multiple times? Maybe. And the other thing though, too, is uh they have all these other theories
00:50:45
that, "Okay, well, the weapon wasn't the poker, the weapon was his hands, and he
00:50:50
actually beat her head against the stairs." Okay, I would argue then, well, you you maybe get lacerations from
00:50:57
beating her head against the the the stairs, but where's the brain bruising? Where's the swelling? Where's the you
00:51:04
know, it's That's where it becomes so odd. How do you get these marks you know, I mean, like, how do you get
00:51:13
these marks without getting any skull fracture? That was the single hardest thing for me
00:51:20
to get over. To That was the And still remains I I shouldn't say get over. It's something that just doesn't make any
00:51:27
sense to me. Where I think it might make some sense to me is as I pointed out before, the jury
00:51:34
didn't believe that the blow poke was the murder weapon. I don't believe that the blow poke was the murder weapon. I
00:51:41
don't see how somebody could make those marks on the scalp using that item without fractures in the skull.
00:51:49
So, that portion kind of makes sense to me. The thing is, I'm with you, Captain, in
00:51:57
the sense that if I were sitting on the jury, I wouldn't have been able to convict
00:52:02
Michael Peterson of the murder of Kathleen Peterson. I think that the defense did a good enough job Well,
00:52:08
based off the documentary. Based off of what I saw in the documentary, correct. Um and based off of what I've researched
00:52:16
since then. Now, if it all went down as I believe that it went down, like I said, sitting on the
00:52:22
jury, I wouldn't be able to convict him. I think there was reasonable doubt that
00:52:26
he didn't commit this murder. Now, I'm not saying that he's innocent. Now, Well, mind you, too, if you were on the
00:52:32
jury, you didn't see his uh initial eyebrows. Cuz they were trimmed. Well, you might
00:52:38
have convicted him with his initial eyebrows. Now, gun to my head, I have to make a decision.
00:52:44
let me get one out. All right. Okay, make sure it's locked and loaded. Take the safety off.
00:52:49
Yeah, this is what you do when you're drinking. No, don't say that. Don't say that, Don't ever touch a gun when you're
00:52:56
drinking. going to be All right. Serious note, don't play with guns. Don't drink and play with guns. All
00:53:02
right. Sorry. Gun to my head. Meaning I have to make a decision. Right, right. Guilty, not guilty. Mhm.
00:53:12
I'm going to go with guilty. I I'm going to say Michael Peterson killed his wife. And And here's where
00:53:20
I'm going with this. This is This is what I believe happened. Mhm. And I'm going to use his words to convict him in
00:53:28
my mind. Mhm. And his words on the um to the documentary uh the staircase documentary, when he's
00:53:37
recounting that night, he says that around 11:00 we finished watching the movie, went into the kitchen for a
00:53:42
while, we talked for a while, for a good amount of time. We went out to the pool,
00:53:46
talked for a good amount of time. She goes inside, goes to bed, I stay outside, have a smoke, I come inside, I
00:53:52
find her dead, I called 911. We do know that the 911 call happened at 2:40, 2:41
00:53:57
in the morning. Okay? Where I have a problem with his version of the story is at no point does he
00:54:06
tell us that she had a phone conversation in his office with her co-worker at 11:08.
00:54:15
Mhm. This was the time that they were supposed to be done with the movie and in the kitchen talking. Right.
00:54:20
And then she's waiting on a very important email. Now, people have pointed out that she never opened that
00:54:26
email that came through at 11:53. That means he killed her before 11:53. I don't believe that 100% because the
00:54:32
meeting was the next day at 10:00 a.m. Right. She could have just wanted to make sure that that email came in. I'll
00:54:38
check it first thing in the morning. Right, but you you she might have checked to see if it was there.
00:54:43
She could have checked to see if it was there. The other thing is, I think what happened,
00:54:48
and I'm using the state's evidence, which I know is slightly flawed, Mhm. but the state's evidence was that she
00:54:54
would have died of blood loss. That would have taken 90 minutes to 2 hours for her to bleed out.
00:55:00
Mhm. She was reported dead She's reported dead by Michael Peterson at 2:46 a.m. in the morning. And what I mean by
00:55:11
that is on the first call, he repeatedly states she's still breathing. On the second call, he says she's no
00:55:19
longer breathing. He might have thought she was breathing though. I'm going by his Again, I'm going by his
00:55:25
words. And if she's coughing up blood or spitting up blood, it's going to be pretty obvious that she's breathing.
00:55:31
She's going to be breathing heavily, too. So, Yeah. He By his own words, she was breathing
00:55:39
at 2:41 and not breathing at 2:46. If it took 90 minutes to 2 hours for her to bleed to death, I don't feel like
00:55:47
there's enough time in his story for her to have fallen accidentally and bled out
00:55:54
for an hour and a half to 2 hours before he finds her and then calls 911. Yeah, um
00:56:02
I don't know if the 11:00 stuff makes sense or not. The other thing I would really want to know
00:56:09
uh it and it never was answered was is he a night owl? No pun intended. It doesn't matter to me though. Go
00:56:18
ahead. No, the reason why is because for a couple to normally married couples go to bed together. Sometimes they don't
00:56:27
always, especially when they're drinking. One drinks more than the other, they go, "I'm going to go to
00:56:30
bed." They're like, "Yeah, I'm up I'm up partying." But you don't normally stay up that much
00:56:36
longer. But he's a smoker, so is it possible that they were drinking and then he sat
00:56:42
there and smoked? And how did he stay out there for 2 or 3 hours? Mhm. Is his timeline wrong? He was drinking, you
00:56:49
know, like they they had the conversation at 11:00. They go outside. Let's say they're only
00:56:54
outside for a couple uh 30 minutes. Right? Mhm. She goes, "I'm going to bed." Okay,
00:57:00
good night. She has her accident. He's out there till 2:30 or whatever. Then then things start adding up. I
00:57:10
don't know if she'd be breathing, but again, I mean, we we again, we don't even know if she was breathing or not.
00:57:19
But by his own words, she was breathing. Yeah, but I don't give a [ __ ] about words. I want to get I want evidence,
00:57:26
you know. Okay, I'm trying to put together my thought and my opinions of the case if
00:57:31
he's guilty or not. No, no, I agree with I agree I agree with what you're saying.
00:57:35
What I'm saying is can't the medical examiner tell us when a closer time she died?
00:57:42
that's why I said that they dropped the ball earlier. If you look at the autopsy, the original autopsy states
00:57:48
time of death 2:40 a.m. question mark. And what I'm stating here is I have to use Michael Peterson's own words and
00:57:58
then work that back against some of the evidence that we have there. And the evidence that's stated by the state is
00:58:05
it would have taken an hour and a half to 2 hours for her to bleed to death. He's stating that at 2:41 she's alive
00:58:11
and at 2:46 a.m. she's dead. Meaning that she went inside either at 1:15, if we are to
00:58:19
believe his story. Mhm. That she went inside as late as 1:15 in the morning or as early as 12:45
00:58:28
a.m. in the morning. And then magically she falls down the steps, he comes in, he says about 30 minutes, 40 minutes
00:58:36
after she went inside, he went inside. And I understand he could have his times off a little bit.
00:58:42
Mhm. The prob- The problem though is if in fact the state is right that it took an hour and a half for 2 hours for her
00:58:49
to bleed to death, his story doesn't match up. It just doesn't match up. Yeah, also, I think the difficult thing
00:58:57
is one one of the things that defense said was they looked at all the cases that
00:59:03
somebody died from blunt force trauma, and there was never a case that there wasn't skull fractures.
00:59:09
So, what did he use? I think the bio um What did I figure out was? Biomechanics.
00:59:19
Okay, there we go. The biomechanic expert was correct. I think, but again, how did she fall? Did she slip or
00:59:28
did she get pulled down? And if you got pulled down hard enough, would you possibly pull out some hair?
00:59:36
Mhm. And then she would grab her hair, and now she has her some hair chunks out of her. And if you
00:59:44
you didn't ask me before if you put a gun to my head. But if you put a gun to my head, I'd
00:59:50
have to say he was he was guilty of this. I personally, what I think happened here, I I don't think, obviously, the
00:59:58
blowpoke was used to kill Kathleen Peterson. I don't know that he intended to kill her. I think that maybe that
01:00:05
there was, like the state said, an an argument that escalated into some kind of physical attack.
01:00:11
Um the result was her her murder, and that he caused her death. Yeah. And but but think about this, too, though.
01:00:20
If he pulls her hair, right? Or pushes her, whatever, to get there's some kind of attack.
01:00:28
It's more likely that she then moves around more, struggles more when she's down there,
01:00:34
tries to get back up on her feet. Mhm. It's just more likely than if she just fell.
01:00:41
Cuz the way the defense tries to make it out is that she just fell, she starts bleeding,
01:00:47
and then she tries to get help, and she tries to stand up, she try You know what
01:00:50
I mean? Well, I think the problem here really is that I do think that she fell down the
01:00:55
steps. And I think that the fall was not um by way of her being drunk or taking Valium or wearing flip-flops or being
01:01:05
attacked by an owl out front of her house. I think she was attacked by Michael Peterson, and that caused her to
01:01:11
have injuries that caused her to fall as she hurried up the stairs. And then she
01:01:17
suffered injuries during the course of that fall, which made it very confusing in the end for all of us to determine
01:01:23
was it an attack or was it a fall? Personally, I think there's some kind of argument ensued in the kitchen, and I
01:01:30
think that if I had to pick a weapon, I think it might have been a corkscrew. I think that he might have tried to
01:01:38
punch her or try to smack at the back of her head as she was leaving him defiantly in the course of the argument,
01:01:47
and he scratched and clawed her with the corkscrew, whether it be intentional or
01:01:52
not. Mhm. But that caused some of the lacerations, which then she went up the stairs, fell backwards, hit her head
01:02:00
again, which resulted in the lacerations getting bigger or splitting, like they had said.
01:02:19
All right. Thanks for listening. Thank you for sharing on social media. It's because of you that we can continue
01:02:26
to drink in the garage and disagree and agree and disagree and And agree. And then agree.
01:02:35
All right. All right. So, check out check out our other show, Off the Record. It's on Stitcher
01:02:41
Premium. It's $5 a month, and what's cool is not only do you get our show, but you get our show without
01:02:47
commercials. You also get other shows without commercial. It's It's basically the Netflix
01:02:53
for podcasting. And if you want to just dip your toes in the water rather than dive all the way into the deep end, Mhm.
01:03:00
you can try it for free for 30 days. So, you can check out Stitcher Premium and see if you love it. We're getting all
01:03:06
kinds of great reviews. I appreciate those. Everybody, make sure you join us back here in the garage next week. Until
01:03:12
then, be good, be kind, and don't litter.