Originally Posted by retro:electro
Just home from the audience with David. I thought it was good.. but left feeling more frustrated than when I entered. David himself seems like a lovely man, very witty and personable, but I cannot understand how after all this time he’s not even willing to entertain anything other than Michael’s innocence.
I would agree with the previous poster who said he speaks to the audience with the inclination we assume Michael is innocent, and if not he is trying to convince you so.
He argued about the rights of the press to publish the prejudicial stuff from Germany vs Michael’s right to a trial, he said it was a case of amendment vs amendement. He kind of made it seem like it was an issue exclusive to this case, instead of acknowledging its an American justice issue in any event.
I found it interesting that he did not mention the night itself at all. His whole argument was focused on the trial and the injustices he felt present. He did not once mention the night itself, the 9/11 call, what Michael did in the two hours before the call.. nothing.
Also at times it just all felt kind of in bad taste.. I noted that he didn’t even mention Kathleen’s name at all until the second act. There was a lot of attempted jokes and witticisms that kind of fell flat.. I think in the back of your mind it’s hard to erase the fact that a women (possibly two) died at the hands of this man and so it’s just in bad taste to try and be humorous off the back of that.
He didn’t read out my pre-submitted question but I did get a chance at the end to meet him and ask him personally. I just wanted to know why, if the defence argue that Kathleen fell backwards multiple times, why she had a fractured cartilage injury. He kind of fobbed me off and asked me to email him. So I asked him again.. and said it’s an injury consistent with manual strangulation and he deflected and said it’s not only consistent with strangulation it’s often presented in those who have been in car crashes etc.. I said okay but she wasn’t in a car crash.. and he said he had to go... also almost the entire second act was dedicated to the owl theory which David himself says he doesn’t believe to be true but still he insisted on mentioning it. Funny because he spent a lot of time insisting we don’t pay heed to Reddit or speculative theories online; while he himself indulged one of the biggest online conspiracies himself...
If anything it just re-solidified my belief that he is guilty as sin. David is a great defence lawyer and he was doing his job. He treated the town hall like a mini court room, replaying pieces from the doc and arguing against them poking holes etc. But overall i just wasn’t convinced.
So yeah. I enjoyed it but it did have a feel that it was thrown together last minute. There was a moderator there prompting David and instructing him but the moderator seemed kind of bias and selective in his questioning. My bf is quite worried at this stage
He says I’ve graduated from documentaries to podcasts and now to live shows... the next step is the real thing.... watch this space....
Enjoyed the evening very much,David Rudolf is a very nice chap with a firm focus now on righting the wrongs of what he perceives to be miscarriages of justice.Kathleen Zellner eat your heart out.
TBH I'm in the opposite camp to your goodself.
I was expecting that he'd other than continue to be a strong advocate for the innocence of Michael Peterson.
Enjoyed his mention of the sheer indictment of the US judicial system.The fact that highly prejudicial evidence such as the coroner's conclusion re homicidal intent( not blunt force trauma )
could be publicised pre trial was a travesty.Praise be the lord more enlightened judicial systems such as ours and the UK do not permit same.
The introduction of the evidence relating to Elizabeth Ratliff's death was not relevant to this case.
The whole first amendment freedom of the press versus fifth amendment due process/fair trial really argument was secondary to an examination of the faultlines(confidence) in the US judicial system.
It's painfully obvious that miscarriages of justice arise due to law enforcement incompetencies and confirmation bias(tunnel vision).He/she is guilty and the case will be framed around achieving the correct outcome.However the ends does'nt justify the means.
The owl theory however unlikely may be plausible.
Rudolf made mention of gallows humour (black humour) that the family utilised as a coping mechanism during the documentary.Tis not an uncommon occurrence.Similarly I do not think Rudolf nor the audience were making light of Kathleen's death nor negating either woman's memory.
Re the dried blood he countered same by stating that the initial EMT's report did not state the blood was dry.
He discounted the blood spatter expert and the other discredited prosecution expert witnesses whilst talking up his own expert witnesses.He discounted the blow poker theory which was not always present as indicated in historical photographs.
The absence of any of the expected signs post a death from a blunt force trauma head injury..cranial fracture,haemotoma ( subdural,subcranial or intracranial ) as outlined in the documentary casts further doubt.
Heartened to hear he was doing the case pro bono post 2003 as Peterson was broke.Some have sought to paint such individuals as mercenaries out to make a quick buck on the back of their fifteen minutes of fame.David Rudolf is a better person than that and an educator/justice advocate.
He discredited the theory re the possible bias Peterson's relationship with Sophie Burnet would have given rise to.
She started to write to him out of sympathy when he was incarcerated and a relationship only developed post his release.
She'd no editorial input in the first 8 episodes and was recused for the later episodes.
The whole premise that his motive was Kathleen only becoming aware on the night re his bisexuality is hardly credible.It is remarkably common for there to be an understanding on both parties parts that one party has a secret life.
So it'll come as little surprise to anybody that I'm of the belief that there is ample reason to doubt his guilt and be of the opinion that the prosecution failed to achieve the requisite burden of evidence.