Jim Hardin's Opening Statement || Poetic*Justice

Jim Hardin's
Opening Statement
July 1, 2003

Peterson Murder Trial

It seems like it has been a long time since we first talked to you on May 5, and in a lot of ways, it has been a long time. This day has been anticipated with a great deal of anxiety by a lot of people for a lot of reasons. And, now, today is the day that we will actually begin presenting this case in earnest. It is a case that you will have to make some tough decisions about. But we talked with you at length, and we believe you can do that.

As Judge Hudson just indicated to you a moment ago, the lawyers for each side will now have an opportunity to make an opening statement to you. We will describe to you what we each contend the evidence is going to show. It is my intention to be very, very brief. I do not intend to describe the minutiae of every single fact that we intend to prove in this case. But I do want to spend enough time with you so that we can talk about enough facts so that I can frame the issues for you, but no more time than that.

I recall that only a couple of you have served on juries before. So in a very real sense, this is a new experience for each of you. It's a learning experience. We realize from your responses to the questions that we asked of you in jury selection that nearly all of you had heard something about this case. You just heard Judge Hudson speak to you a moment ago about the media and the fact that they are here and are going to be here. They are going to be reporting this. But when you really boil it all down, right now, as jurors, I anticipate you must be asking yourself, regardless of how much I know about this case, what is it really about?

From a legal perspective, it is very well defined. We talked about that in our selection process with you. The sides are diametrically opposed. The defendant says that Kathleen Peterson's death was caused by a tragic, accidental fall down stairs in their home. And we say, on the other hand, that she died a horrible, painful death at the hands of her husband, Michael Peterson.

Now, I've pondered how I might be able to encapsulate that concept, that diametric opposition, so that you can see it. And what I decided to do was go to the pictures. I selected a couple of pictures for you that really, in my mind, show this diametric opposition. I'd like to show you those right now.

(Walks to table, picks up photograph, holds it up for jurors to see)

The first photograph I am going to show you is of Kathleen. This would have been taken, obviously, prior to her death. This is how she would have looked prior to Dec. 9, 2001, had you seen her in her home, or possibly at work, or out in a central gathering. You can see from this photograph -- you can feel from this photograph -- that she is a very genteel, warm person. It does not take much time to see that, from just viewing one photograph, but there it is.

(Puts down photo, gets another photo, holds it up for jurors to look at)

Now, on Dec. 9, 2001, at 2:48, when EMS personnel first arrive, they see a very, very different picture. They see something that horrifies them. They see something that one person will say just didn't make sense. When they enter the house, they see Kathleen Peterson in a completely different way. They see her lying at the bottom of her steps, just as you see in this photograph.

(Puts photograph down, picks up another one, holds it up for jurors to look at)

Now, later that, day, after her body has been removed from the home, she is taken to the Medical Examiner's office. You are going to hear about that. What you will hear and see relates to the injuries that she sustained. This is one of the first photographs taken of her as she is lying on a steel gurney in the Medical Examiner's office after they have shaved her head so they can determine where the wounds are. This is where the rubber meets the road, ladies and gentlemen. They say it was an accident that was caused by a couple of falls in that stairwell, and we say it's not. We say it's murder, and you will have to decide that. They say this is three or four lacerations. We say it's at least seven, and you're going to have to be the judge of it. You're going to have make decisions about how this happened. But again, they say it's an accident, and we say it's murder. And, what this case is about will really describe that to you.

(Puts photograph down, picks up blowpoke)

Now, you'll see something else here, and I'm going to show that to you. You heard Mr. Rudolf talk with you about the fact that we didn't have a weapon. That is true. We don't have the actual implement that Mike Peterson used to cause this injury, wounding, lacerations to the back of Kathleen's head. But we have an identical weapon. Where did we get it? Kathleen's sister, Candace, gave several family members a blowpoke just like this one -- to several of the members of the family. She gave one to Kathleen. She gave it to Kathleen when she (Kathleen) was originally married to Fred Atwater. Kathleen had had this in her home for years and years and years and years. We will show you photographs where the blowpoke that is identical to this was in the home. But mysteriously, on Dec. 9, it's gone.

You will hear expert testimony, and it will describe how this implement -- er, an implement just like it -- can cause these injuries. But understand this is not the actual weapon. But we will contend to you that it is identical to what we say he used as part of the mechanism to cause these lacerations. We'll also say to you that she was forcefully impacted on several of the steps to cause some of this wounding. But the primary mechanism is something like this. It is hollow. It is light It's easily used, and we will contend to you that this, or something like this, is the article that was used to inflict these wounds.

Now, that's a very simple description of what this case is about. But in large measure, it's about much, much more. The core issues are simple, but everything else about this case isn't.

In a very real sense, this case is about pretense and appearances. It's about things not being as they seem.

As this case begins to unfold, you see the grandeur of the Petersons' 10,000-square-foot mansion that is located in a very affluent area of Durham. You will see the appearance of a storybook marriage between a couple who had a blended family that appears to have it all.

In particular, you will hear about what some have described as the success of Michael Peterson as a writer and columnist. You will also hear about Kathleen's success as a Nortel manager, as a patron of the Arts, and as the quintessential hostess for all occasions. And doesn't she look like it? She looks like a very loving, warm person -- the quintessential lady, genteel, exactly what you want your daughter to be.

From all the appearances, this was a perfect family. But as the old saying goes, appearances can be very deceiving. The evidence is going to show that the Petersons had developed a huge appetite for expensive living. With Kathleen's salary and benefits during an 18-year career at Nortel, it was possible to cultivate a taste for fine things, and they certainly did that. They were able to do this because, for much of the time, there was plenty of money, and the potential of greater wealth at Nortel was always on the horizon.

Then, like an ominous storm cloud, the picture began to change. This changing situation was something that Mike Peterson couldn't tolerate, primarily because he couldn't control it. Like a storm cloud, many pressurized conditions in the Peterson house began to converge, and on Dec. 9, 2001, they erupted.

The evidence is going to show that for several years prior to her death, Kathleen -- not Mike, but Kathleen -- was the primary financial support for the Peterson-Atwater-Ratliff family. They all depended on her for virtually everything. And in particular, they depended upon her substantial, steady salary and all-encompassing benefit package, which were available to her because of her Nortel employment.

We will call witnesses, family members, co-workers and Nortel persons, and a financial analyst from the State Bureau of Investigation to describe the financial predicament that the Petersons had put themselves into over a period of time. They had had to begin living on credit. They were forced to liquidate Kathleen's assets. And out of all this, the evidence is also going to show how, by the end of 1999, Michael Peterson was making no income as a writer. And that during the year of 2000 and 2001, he made no income as a writer and only had a modest income from a military pension.

The evidence is going to show that Kathleen was carrying almost the entire financial burden for the family, and that it was overwhelming. You might imagine that it would be. How tough can it be to have several children in college, multiple mortgages and expensive tastes and habits? It takes a lot to do those things.

To help put this into context, we are going to call witnesses that will talk about the financial and personnel environment that Kathleen and others found themselves in at Nortel. These witnesses will describe that the fortunes of Nortel had deteriorated, and as that happened, everyone at Nortel began to worry about whether they were going to have a job. This included Kathleen and everyone around her.

There is going to be evidence that Nortel, because of its financial condition, had to lay off people, and Kathleen was involved in that process and was intimately aware of all that was involved in laying off people at Nortel because of Nortel's deteriorating financial condition.

Kathleen and Michael both knew that the loss of Kathleen's job and the loss of her salary and benefits would have a devastating effect on an already difficult financial situaiton.

But Mike Peterson, the creative thinker, the writer of fiction, was able to figure out a perfect solution. That solution was to make it appear as though Kathleen accidentally fell down her steps and died. And, like magic, no more money problems. Like magic, Mike Peterson goes from a point where they are going to have to sell assets and live on credit to survive to, all of a sudden, with her death, has 1.8 million dollars in his hand. That's a lot of money. That solves a lot of problems.. What a wonderful solution. There's only one catch. He's got to kill Kathleen Peterson to get that 1.8 million. But Mike Peterson, with that money, was going to be able to pull himself out of the financial fire he had built for himself. Kathleen's death, accidental death, would then have allowed him to continue to live the affluent privileged life to which he had become accustomed even though he had no job.

The first sign to the outside world that things were not as they appeared at the Peterson house was with the 9-1-1 call that he makes on Dec. 9, 2001, at 2:40 in the morning. With that phone call, he gambles a lot. With that phone call, he gambles that the police were as dumb as he thinks they are. He gambles that the police would see Kathleen's death as he wanted it to appear and as he wanted them to believe it to be. I want you to listen to the 9-1-1 tape. You'll hear it in the next few days, I anticipate. Listen closely to it. Listen to how selective and evasive he is in providing information to the communicator, information about Kathleen's circumstances. Listen to the 9-1-1 communicator take his information, which he essentially says this is an accidental a fall, and delivers that information to EMS personnel and police, causing them to believe that they are going to respond to an accident. As I describe what some of the witnesses will say, please keep all this in mind.

Now, there are going to be two 9-1-1 calls. The first one says as I indicated. He indicates to the 9-1-1 caller, and it's a very brief call. Kathleen has fallen down the steps. It's an accident, and she's still breathing. That's the concept. He hangs up the phone. A few moments later, he calls again. Now, she's not breathing. Where are they? You will hear how the 9-1-1 communicator continues to ask questions of him, but he is non-responsive. And there's a reason for that. He's being very selective about the information he wants to give her, anticipate, because he knows the conversation is being taped.

Now, who gets there. The first people on the scene are the EMS. What do they see? As they come up to the house, they enter the house, they go left. So they would be coming from about here, into the house, coming down the hallway. As they enter the hallway, they don't see anybody. But as they come further into the hallway, they see Kathleen lying in this position, with this blood. They see Michael Peterson standing over her. He's got blood all over him, all over his clothes. He's barefoot. Shoes are right here. He's barefoot. What do they do?

Once they get there, they have to asses her, because they've been told that it's an accident. One of the EMS personnel starts to think: 'This really doesn't look like an accident, but I'm going to go through the assessment process and make sure that she is not alive, because she doesn't look alive to me. He goes through that process. There are no vital signs. There is no electric activity out of the heart. None.

In fact, what he will say is that, based on all that he sees, based on the assessment of Kathleen and based on all the blood in this area . . . You're going to see it. It's all over the walls. Some of this blood inside this stairwell is over six feet high. Outside the stairway, there's castoff that's 10 feet high. So there is blood all over this area, on the walls, on the east well, on the north wall, there's some on the west wall here. There's blood all in this area. There's blood on Kathleen, under Kathleen, beside Kathleen. It's all dry. So he says when he gets there, he sees all this dry blood, and based on that assessment of Kathleen, and based on the observations that he makes of the area, he concludes that she's been dead for some time. He can't say exactly how long, but she's been dead for some time.

Now what does Mr. Peterson say when the EMS folks get there? He says after they tried to question him, he doesn't give them an information because he's so distraught. But he does say: 'I went out to turn off the pool lights. I came back, and there she was.' That's all he says.

About that time, you've got police officers coming into the area. You've got to realize that there are several EMS folks here. They stop anybody from going into this area. When they come in the door initially, Todd Peterson comes in right behind them. He doesn't come down in here. He goes around, and behind. There's actually another staircase. There's another way to come through the house to get into the kitchen. And that's what he does. So the EMS folks and the fire folks that respond with them keep this area secure. And no one else comes into the area. You can hear the EMS folks say the blood was so dry, we weren't picking it off our hands. We didn't get it on hour shoes. We didn't get it on our clothes.

And as they are attending to Kathleen, as I said a moment ago, the police department arrives. They, again, are thinking this is an accident. So that's the mindset they have. That's the approach they are taking as they go into the area. At that point, they've only got a couple of officers to secure this area, so they have to call for more assistance. And as they do that, within 30 minutes, this place does have many police officers in it. The scene is secure.

And Mr. Rudolf will have you believe, as he's talked with in jury selection, that this was a chaotic scene. It wasn't. It was very organized. Once they realized what they had, they made some decisions, and they got everything secure. So as you listen to their testimony, please keep that in mind.

You will also hear from crime scene technicians. Now, what do they do? Television gies you a lot of impressions about what they do, but at least in Durham, they take photographs. They collect evidence and sometimes they do some minor routine testing, like Luminol. We talked a little about that in jury selection. We'll hear from a couple of crime scene technicians, in particular you'll hear from Dan George, who came into the area and realized that this didn't look like, to him, it was not as it appeared. He backs out of the area and waits until everything is absolutely secure so that then he can go back in and do his job. You'll hear from Eric Campen, who was there to support him.

Dan George was the lead on this case. It was his responsibility to document what was done and collect the evidence and then present that in court. Dan called for Eric so that he could get some support because he realized this was such a huge area, and it was going to be an an overwhelming scene, he needed some help. They actually called several technicians to come and actually perform tasks at the scene over a significant period of time -- a day and half.

So you'll hear also from Eric Campen. You'll hear how Eric describes conducted Luminol testing. He didn't Luminol everything. But what he did luminol was in this area right here. Remember, there was no blood here. There was blood here. There was no blood here. But he wanted to see whether anyone had walked in this area, and the luminol testing showed him exactly what happened.

Luminol testing showed that there were footprints into the washroom, footprints into the kitchen, and in various area of the kitchen. Now why is this important? As you're looking at these photographs, you're going to see things, and as we talk with you about it more and more, we will contend to you that this defendant was attempting to stage aspects of this scene so that it would appear as he wanted it to appear. He had to make it look right, but it didn't. He made some mistakes, and we are going to point that out to you.

He attempted to stage things, and that is why some of this information that you'll hear from Dan George and from Eric Campen and from Agent Duane Deaver, who is a blood spatter expert with the FBI, will be so critical.

You're going to hear from Nortel folks, as I indicated to you. They're going to talk about the environment at Nortel and how difficult it was out there because the financial condition at Nortel had deteriorated to the point that they were having to lay off people right and left, people who had been there, people who had been there years and years and years. And, as I indicated a moment ago, Kathleen was involved in that process. She knew all the details about having to go through and lay somebody off. It took a toll on her. It was tough on her. And she also knew that her job was in jeopardy.

In fact, at one point, she had been placed on what Nortel describes as the "Optimization" list. That's a euphemistic way for saying "you're going to be terminated." Now, she was taken off that list very quickly, but at least she was on it for about a month prior to her death, so that gives you some idea of the fact that there is validity to her concern about the possibility of losing her job, and losing the salary, and losing the benefits, and losing the ability to support this family.

You're going to hear from various State Bureau of Investigation agents. One of those whose going to help talk about the financial aspects of the Peterson household is agent Lawrence Young. He's going to talk about some of the things that I've already alluded to -- that this was a family in a difficult financial situation.

They had basically, because of some very poor decisions on their part, in deferring some compensation and not having income coming directly coming to them from Nortel but having it deferred, so that it could be taken later down the road, five years and 10 years down the road, but they had made some decisions in light of the fact that Nortel was doing so poorly.

And what it boiled down to is they had to sell all the liquid assets that Kathleen had, almost all of them. They had to then begin selling her real estate. They then had to use credit to live from day to day. The credit report is going to show that they had $143,000 of credit-card debt. That's an awful lot of credit-card debt. But it describes to you the predicament they were in.

You're going to hear from Agent Joyce Petzka, who's going to talk about a footprint, a bloody footprint from Mr. Peterson's shoe that is on the back of Kathleen's leg, on the back of her calf, and we're going to contend to you what that means. But you will hear from her as well.

You're going to hear from Agent David Micheaux, who's going to talk to you about what he found in Mr. Peterson's computer, and what he didn't find. One of the things he's going to talk about is the fact that, right after the house is released back to the Petersons, on Dec. 10, at about 8 o'clock, sometime after that there was evidence someone went into the computer, copied he entire hard drive and then began selectively loading things back onto the hard drive. And this is less than a day after her death.

You'll hear from Agent John Bendure, who will talk to you about Mr. Peterson's clothes and why we contend -- along with many other thing -- that Mike Peterson did this to his wife. It tells in the clothes. It tells in the scene. It tells in the photographs. And he's going to talk to you about blood spatter as it relates to how it penetrates clothing. And he, in essence, will say to you that there are aspects of that blood spattering in that clothing and how it penetrated the clothing that it couldn't just be contact brushoff from what Mr. Peterson says he did to Mrs. Peterson as he holds and caresses her. And there's certainly going to be evidence of that, and we will contend to you why he's doing that -- because he's trying to damage the scene, to contaminate the scene, to confuse things to make it so it isn't what it appears.

You'll hear from Agent Duane Deaver, and there are several others, but he's the last one that I'm going to talk to you about from the SBI. Agent Duane Deaver is the blood spatter expert that's going to talk about how he contends Kathleen was impacted in this area (pointing to a picture). He finds what he will call several points of origin, and what he also will say is that from his perspective, this was very, very important because it was above the floor. It was above the step area. He will say it's positioned in such a manner that these can't be due to an accidental impact on the stairs. That, in essence, is what he will say, and that will also be very, very important evidence.

You will also hear from Dr. Deborah Radisch, who will talk about the seven lacerations on the back of Kathleen's head and the fact that she also has defensive wounds on her arms, her hands, some on her back face and back of her arms. She will talk about the cause of death, and, in essence, she will say there was a severe concussive injury caused by multiple blunt force impacts to the head.

There will be other witnesses. But those are the ones that I wanted to highlight for you because they give you a flavor of what you will be hearing. Again, I'm not going to try to tell you everything about every aspect of the case at this point or every fact that we intend to present.

Now, in his discussions with you all in jury selection, Mr. Rudolf told you that this case was all about the forensics. He said it to almost everyone of you. I was keeping count. He said it was really a battle of the experts. Ladies and gentlemen, I couldn't disagree more. This is not a case of the battle of the experts. This is a case about your exercise of your good reason and your common sense. And it's going to be a battle against what this defendant contends happened, what he wanted it to appear as having happened.

Now, I recognize it is not going to be very easy for you to hear and say some of these things. This is just a taste of it. There's some stuff that's as bad or worse than this. I recognize it is going to be tough for some of you. I also recognize it's not going to be easy for some of you to make some of these decisions that you are going to be required to make. But you have to do it. And no matter how difficult this task is, we must go through this for Kathleen. Please remember that it is ultimately about her (Kathleen). Up to this point, we have talked a lot about Mike Peterson, but when you really get down to it, it's about Kathleen (holding up her picture). About Kathleen.

Now, obviously, this case is very important to the defendant. It's obviously very important to this community. It is very important to Kathleen Peterson's family, and several of them are here with me. Her mother, Ms. Hunt, her daughter, Caitlin, her sister, Candace. Her sister, Lori, and her brother, Steven. There are other family members out there with them as well. This case is about them as well, and to be sure, it is about Kathleen.

Kathleen can't come in here and tell you what happened to her. Ms. Black and I have to speak for her. And we will do that in the presentation of this case. Ultimately, it's going to be your responsibility to determine what the truth is and to render an appropriate verdict. We contend that once you have heard this case, you will determine the truth, and at that point, Ms. Black and I ask that you return a verdict of guilty to the charge of first-degree murder against Michael Peterson.

Thank you.