The first-degree murder trial of Michael Peterson began in July 2003, with the prosecutor, Jim Hardin, promising to tell a story of a husband who killed in a perfect storm of domestic tension; a crime fueled, he argued, by money worries and sexual secrets.

Jim Hardin, prosecutor: I am representing Kathleen because she is not going to be able to tell anybody what happened and we are her voice.

The defendant says that Kathleen Peterson’s death was caused by a tragic accidental fall down the 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.

The state began its mostly circumstantial case with testimony from the police and paramedics summoned to the scene. Assistant district attorney Freda Black did the questioning.

Freda Black, assistant district attorney: What looked suspicious to you?

Paramedic: One, I had a deceased person there and then there was a large amount of blood that didn’t look consistent with someone falling down steps.

Too much blood, the first-responders thought, for a fall on a wooden staircase but just as puzzling: the blood on and around the victim was mostly dry.

Paramedic: It did not have the sheen that normally comes with wet blood.

Dried blood, meant to the paramedics, that the victim had been lying at the bottom of the stairs for awhile before the 911 call came in around 2:40 a.m.

Jim Hardin: We have contended all along that the attack probably occurred around midnight or maybe a little bit earlier.

The dried blood was one sign to investigators that time had elapsed before the husband called for help but there was something else found later in lab tests, a kind of biological clock and marker. Injuries discovered in Kathleen’s brain had produced something called “red neurons.”

Hardin: For those to develop, she has to have an ischemic event, which means lack of oxygen to the brain for at least  a two-hour period.

Dennis Murphy, Dateline correspondent: She’s bleeding to death?

Hardin: She’s bleeding to death. 

It raised an unanswered question: if Kathleen Peterson is slowly dying for two hours at the bottom of the stairs, where is Michael Peterson all the while?

The prosecution also called the first police investigator at the house. The officer testified he saw red flags indicating foul play right away, notably the way Kathleen Peterson’s body had come all too neatly to rest.

Det. Borden: In my experience, very rarely—I don’t think ever—I saw a serious fall where the neck was in complete alignment with the spinal cord.

Then there was what some thought, odd behavior of the husband.

A veteran crime-scene technician testified he remembered his first glimpse of Michael Peterson bursting through the patio door covered in blood.

Crime scene technician: He was moaning and he ran thru the home over to Mrs. Peterson’s body. And then he put his arms around her and he was still sobbing.

The prosecutor contended this was all melodramatic acting and a way for Peterson to account for blood on himself.

Murphy: So there’s a whole bunch of these little things, like “What’s going on here? What’s up with this guy?”

Hardin: The scene doesn’t make sense  and doesn’t square with the story.

Officers called by the prosecution noted other incongruities: the husband’s sneakers and bloody socks. Why had he taken them off? His wife’s dying and he’s concerned about messing up the house?

Hardin: It didn’t make sense why he’d take his shoes off unless he realized he was going to be tracking blood thru the house and he had to take his shoes off so he could execute some cleanup.

And how did one of those same sneakers leave a bloody footprint on the BACK side of his dead wife’s sweatpants, the side facing the floor?

There was testimony from other prosecution witnesses that Peterson had tried to clean a large stain of blood off the front of his shorts.

And other details: on the kitchen counter police saw a bottle of wine and two glasses neatly arrayed—implying, perhaps, the couple had passed a relaxing evening at home sipping wine together. The problem with that cozy image, according to the prosecution, was that his dead wife’s fingerprints weren’t on either glass. The prosecutor argued that Peterson had prominently set out the bottle and glasses to suggest that Kathleen had had too much to drink and had tumbled down the stairs inebriated.

Hardin: It went to the aspects of staging in that scene.

In fact, the medical examiner found that Kathleen’s blood alcohol content was so low she could have passed a roadside breathalyzer test.

Was the writer of fiction, making up yet another story to cover-up murder, as an accident? If so, the cops weren’t buying it.

Murphy: State says Michael Peterson beat his wife to death. With what? What was the murder weapon?

Hardin: Well, we contended that it was the blowpoke that was seen in that home on many occasions.

A blowpoke—a metal fireplace tool—identical to the one the prosecutor showed the jury. It had been a gift from Kathleen’s sister Candace.

Prosecutor: Did you have the occasion to see it in her home at various times when you visited?

Kathleen Peterson's sister Candace: Yes, it was always in the kitchen, I used it, I observed Kathleen use. It was always in the kitchen.

In the kitchen, by the back staircase. But search as they may, the police never did find the blowpoke.

Murphy: A question for the jury is: “Well, where’s the weapon at? How does he hide it with police all around him?”

Hardin: You’ve got to realize he’s got several hours that he can clean-up. And in my opinion, I think that it was removed from that property.

Was that why there was blood on the front door and a drop on the brick walkway?

Hardin: Someone with blood on them had to go outside during a relevant time period to this event.

In the end, the state’s case was all about accounting for blood and how it got there.

The state’s blood spatter expert told the jury he was certain Kathleen Peterson had been beaten to death because the droplet patterns of blood and spray on the steps and walls of the stairwell were just what he expected to see if you imagine a weapon rising, striking, rising, casting off blood up the wall with each new blow.

And the expert said the blood found on the INSIDE lower leg of Peterson’s shorts confirms his theory.

Murphy: Do I have the picture right that he would be straddling over her in the stairwell striking her, as the theory goes?  The blood is coming up and hitting the inside part of the shorts?

Hardin: Inside back of the right pant leg, that’s correct.

Murphy: And you couldn’t get the blood there by saying, “Well, I was cradling her, trying to give her some help?”

Hardin: No.

What’s more, the prosecution’s blood expert said he saw evidence of an attempt to clean-up some of the blood on the stairwell.

A scrubbed-down stair step was especially chilling because technicians found drops of fresh blood on top of the smudged clean-up. Did that mean the lethal assault happened in two stages?

Hardin: She was probably down during at least a portion of that time.  And then became conscious again. And he had to initiate a second round of assaults because the blood spatter is on the clean-up.

It came down to the crucial testimony of the medical examiner to button-up the state’s case with an explanation of the gruesome autopsy photos, ultimately the best evidence the state had.

Prosecutor: Do you recall any case where someone died falling down steps and there were multiple lacerations?

Medical examiner: No.

The medical examiner testified to finding seven tears on the scalp so deep they went down to the skull. And bruises on the face arms and hands, she said, were signs of defensive actions, made during a struggle, not a fall.

Medical examiner: In my opinion the injuries were a result of being struck by an object or having the head struck against an object.

Prosecutor: Were you able to determine in your opinion what the manner of her death was?

Examiner: Yes I was.

Prosecutor: What was it?

Examiner: In my opinion the manner of death in this case is homicide.

But if it were a ghastly murder on the back staircase, why did it happen?

The prosecutor isn’t required to give a motive but he knew he had to speculate for the jury anyway.

And that motive, said the state, could be found inside a checkbook and inside a computer hard drive.

The jury was about to meet “Brad”—and Michael Peterson’s sexual secrets would be unveiled.

MORE FROM DATELINE

Dateline Section Front

Mystery at Lost Dog Road Slideshow: Photos in the Bob Duke case When The Smoke Clears   Sneak peek: When The Smoke Clears Slideshow: The Christie Fleming murder Transcript: Dan Brown and Secrets Of The Lost Symbol Through The Pouring Rain In Plain Sight: Jaycee Dugard Timeline: Jaycee Dugard's kidnapping The Michael Jackson Tapes Dateline Section Front   Add Dateline headlines to your news reader: