Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?
We have qualified writers to help you.
We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.
You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)
NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.
NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.
Introduction
The criminal case against Michael Peterson is one of the murder cases that have dragged on for a very long time in Nashville. Mr. Paterson, a former military officer, columnist, and writer, had an impressive career record as one of the American soldiers who were documenting their life experiences in the foreign lands championing for the interests of the Americans. On 9th of December, 2001, Peterson reported that his wife fell when he had gone out of the house to the pool in the middle of the night. He claimed that he came into the house at 2.40 in the morning and found her wife unconscious. The autopsy results showed that the injuries sustained by Kathleen, Mr. Peterson’s wife, were caused by a blunt object blow that she received at the back of the head. The first murder suspect was Mr. Michael Peterson, who was subsequently arrested and charged of criminal case. This case has dragged in the court for several years.
Critical Analysis of the Evidence
According to Harmon (82), when analyzing a murder case, some fundamental issues must be put into consideration to determine whether the accused is guilty as charged or not. The first three fundamental factors should be the motive to kill, means of committing the murder, and ability of the prosecution team to place the suspect at the murder scene. In this paper, the researcher will start analyzing the case by critically looking at these three fundamental factors. The first question that will have to be answered is whether or not Peterson had the motive to murder Kathleen. From the testimonies given in the court by people who were defending the innocence of Peterson, including Kathleen’s own daughter, it was clear that the relationship between Peterson and his wife had become frosty. The witnesses could not understand the reasons why the couple, that had been happy for several years, suddenly developed issues that complicated their marriage.
They agreed that this strained relationship had not become abusive. It was also revealed in court that Mr. Peterson was a gay, but he wanted this to remain a secret, especially to his child. There was further evidence that Kathleen must have found out about his relationship with other men, something that she stated was disgusting to her. From what was revealed in court, Peterson wanted this issue to remain a secret, however, the constant arguments and the increasing strains in the marriage was a clear sign that this information would no longer be hidden from the daughter and his relatives. The only person, who was best placed to reveal his sexuality to the society, and especially to the close relatives of Mr. Peterson, was his wife Kathleen. Her statement would be easy to believe than when it comes from other sources. The path that their relationship had taken indicates that, Kathleen would probably have asked for a divorce. Top of the reasons she would have given is that his husband was a gay, something Peterson was strongly against. It is not clear what the two discussed before the death of Kathleen on that fateful night. However, one fact comes out clearly that Mr. Paterson had the motive to kill Kathleen in order to conceal his gay relationships from his close relatives.
The second factor that will be looked at critically will be the means of killing. One fact that comes out from the analysis of life history of Peterson is that he was in the military. He was trained to kill. He knew how to kill, as a professional, and put the blame on someone else or some other causes (Peterson 121). Kathleen could not match Peterson in terms of physical strength. The prosecution stated that the death of Kathleen was caused by a blunt object with which she was hit severally. It was established that there was a fireplace poker that had been in the house. However, by the time the investigators came to the house, the poker had been transferred to the garage. This, once again raises questions. As a person who understands the law and knows how to conceal the murder, Peterson had moved with speed to hide the murder weapon. Moreover, winter was just setting in, and the fire poker must have been in the house. It was needed the most in the house at that time. Through his past military experiences, he did everything to make it appear that this murder weapon had been in the garage for a very long time. This confirms that indeed Mr. Peterson had the means to kill Kathleen.
Finally, it was necessary to place Mr. Paterson in the place of murder. At 2.40 am, Mr. Peterson claimed that he had just come from the pool outside the house (Diane 74). This incident took place on December 9, just days before the chilling winter begins. On this day of the month, and at that time of the night, the temperatures outside the house must have been very low. In fact, for a 58-year old Peterson, this was too low temperature to stay by the pool. It was stated that after sustaining the injuries, it took 2 hours for Kathleen to die. It meant that Mr. Paterson had spent over two hours in the cold winter outside his house, by the pool. This is an extremely illogical statement. What is even stranger is that Mr. Paterson did not hear any commotions in the house when the wife fell. At 1 am, it would be interesting to know what Kathleen was doing in the house, a lone, while her husband was by the pool. It would be interesting to know why she was moving with speed at that time of the night resulting from the fall. Peterson explanations about his whereabouts at the time of Kathleen’s death do not make sense. This only strengthens the argument that Mr. Paterson was in the house, with his wife, when she sustained the lethal injuries. These three factors clearly show that in one way or the other, Mr. Peterson knew more about the death of his wife than what he was telling the court. He was determined to hide the truth because he was at the center stage of the incident.
According to Armstrong (56), sometimes it may be necessary to draw some comparison of different incidents if this may make it easy to determine the relationship between such murder cases. In 1985, Elizabeth Ratliff and her daughter had visited Paterson for a dinner. Mr. Peterson then drove the two back to their house, helped Ratliff to put her children to bed (Bailey and Rabe 116). The following morning, a nanny found Ratliff dead at the foot of the stairs. It was Mr. Paterson who was with her last before the death. The investigating authorities were unable to relate Peterson to the death of Ratliff and it was concluded that the hemorrhage due to the fall caused her death. There is a close resemblance in the manner in which these two women died. Both incidents took place at the middle of the night. In both cases, Peterson ensured that the incidents were stage-managed to appear that the death was caused by a fall. It is not clear where these two women, who had spent several years staying in their respective houses where they died, would suddenly fall to their death on the nights they were with Peterson. The coincidence in the two cases is worrying. In the fast case, Mr. Paterson- then an energetic young man aged 42, was able to set the scene to be self-explanatory to the authorities. In this incident of the murder of his wife, he even helped the authorities to determine the cause of death, a massive fall from the stairs.
Errors in evidence collection, preservation and processing
The prosecution team did an excellent job in collecting, preserving and processing the data that incriminated Mr. Paterson. However, it was reported that they manipulated some evidence. This gave an avenue for the defense team to put to question the entire evidence presented in the court. This error in data collection led to the release of Mr. Paterson from prison in 2011.
Conclusion
The prosecution team that was handling the murder case of Kathleen did a shoddy job in terms of collecting evidence. They knew what they wanted. However, they lacked skills and experience to get it in a legal manner. This explains why the appeal in 2011 was successful. However, the analysis above shows that Paterson had the motive to kill, the means of doing so, and was present at the time Kathleen sustained the lethal injuries.
References
Armstrong, Erica, Kevin Erskine. Water-Related Death Investigation: Practical Methods and Forensic Applications. New York: Forge, 2013. Print.
Bailey, Fiona, and Jean Rabe. When the Husband Is the Suspect. New York: Forge, 2009. Print.
Diane, Dimond. Be Careful Who You Love: Inside the Michael Jackson Case. London: McMillan, 2010. Print.
Harmon, Daniel. Super Pop: Pop Culture Top Ten Lists to Help You Win at Trivia, Survive in the Wild, and Make It Through Holidays. London: Sage, 2013. Print.
Peterson, Susan. Primary Suspect: Mills & Boon Intrigue. New York: Cengage Learning, 2014. Print.
Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?
We have qualified writers to help you.
We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.
You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)
NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.
NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.