People in this chapter · Elizabeth Ratliff

Prosecutors also argued possible motives. They presented testimony about household debt and cash flow, the benefits Michael Peterson stood to receive, and messages in which he had arranged a sexual encounter with a man. The prosecution suggested Kathleen might have discovered the messages. The argument depended on an inference about discovery and confrontation. A message can document its sender’s conduct. By itself, it cannot tell us who else read it or what happened after that. The state Supreme Court discussed these items because some came from a computer search under an invalid warrant, while earlier valid searches and independent testimony supplied separate evidence on the same subjects. North Carolina Supreme Court, search-warrant and motive analysis.

The jury also heard about Elizabeth Ratliff, a friend of the Peterson family found dead at the bottom of a staircase in Germany in 1985. An autopsy at a U.S. Army hospital in Germany attributed Ratliff’s death to spontaneous intracranial bleeding, with physical injuries resulting from a fall. A 2003 examination after exhumation led Radisch to classify Ratliff’s death as homicide. The State argued that similarities between the scenes had probative value. The defense opposed admission of that evidence. The trial court allowed it, and the state Supreme Court upheld its admission under North Carolina evidence rules. That ruling dealt with what the Durham jury could hear in Kathleen’s case. Michael Peterson was never on trial for Ratliff’s death in this proceeding, and the ruling produced no separate verdict concerning her. North Carolina Supreme Court, Ratliff evidence analysis.

On October 10, 2003, the Durham jury found Peterson guilty of first-degree murder. Judge Orlando Hudson imposed life without parole. A divided Court of Appeals found no prejudicial error. The state Supreme Court then held that evidence obtained under the defective computer warrant should have been excluded. It affirmed because, in its view, the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt given the independent evidence at the trial. It also concluded that the challenged closing remarks did not justify a new trial. By November 2007, that route of appeal had left the judgment standing. The later post-conviction court would address a different question, using evidence about Deaver that the jury and direct-appeal courts had not had before them. Court of Appeals, 2006 and Supreme Court, 2007.