Mr presiding judge, Mr the U.S. Attorney, in conclusion, I would like to remind you some facts about this case.
To begin with, I would like to show some basic elements: Michael Peterson, my client, is an American novelist accused by the prosecution of murdering his second wife Kathleen Peterson.
Her body was found lying on the floor, at the bottom of her stairs.
My client was near his swimming pool at this moment and immediately called 911 when he saw her body. There was blood everywhere and my client was really stressed, as you can hear in the recording. Her wife was still alive, but unconscious and died a few minutes later.
What I mean is there are elements that can tilt the balance to the detriment of my client. Blood was everywhere,
…show more content…
My client is accused of a crime not because the prosecution had physical evidence but because he was bisexual and he had a different way of life. It is about who he is, not what he does. Therefore, I am asking the jury to not choose the verdict because they disagree with Michael Peterson's way of life. It would be discriminating.
This brings me to another point: How can you explain that the autopsy report of Deborah Radisch was available on the web, before the case started? What were they wanted to prove with this report? Michael Peterson would be a serial killer who killed women every twenty years? Even more, what would be the motive of Peterson in the Ratliff case?
As you know, my client is a writer. He had written a lot of articles in the Durham Herald Sun which besmirches the incompetence of Jim Hardin. As you can see, Jim Hardin is now the prosecutor of this trial. It is now obvious that the judicial bias is not respected. We can’t be both judge and jury.
While I am at it, let me add another elements. A local news paper revealed that Duane Deaver teamleader of the North Carolina Centre of Forsenic had deliberately lied about blood test results in at least thirty trials.
To