What do you think?
Rate this book
Written in Blood: Innocent or Guilty?
Accident or Murder?
The Petersons seemed like the ideal couple: well-respected, prosperous and happy. All that came crashing down December 2001, when Kathleen apparently fell to her death in their secluded home. But blood-spattered evidence and a missing fireplace poker suggested calculated, cold-blooded murder. Her trusted husband, Michael, stood accused. So what did happen on the staircase that fateful night?
This is the inside look at the Michael Peterson case. It will make you question everything you’ve seen before.
‘The Staircase is an emotionally riveting drama, but it is nowhere near the whole truth. If anybody wants to know the whole story, read Fanning’s Book’ Ann Christensen, Michael Peterson's sister
416 pages, Paperback
First published February 1, 2005
475 people are currently reading
1437 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 103 reviews
February 24, 2009
After having seen The Staircase, the gripping documentary television series about the Michael Peterson murder, I had a few questions–mostly along the lines of “how could they have possibly found this man guilty?” Then, I did some research online and learned that The Staircase is generally understood as a very biased perspective of the trial, possibly because the filmmakers were only given access to the defense, but also because they slanted the coverage that way.
So I decided to seek out a more balanced account of the trial. I got Written in Blood by Dianne Fanning. Fanning’s book was associated with Capote’s In Cold Blood, a gripping novelization of the trial, because they were nominated for the same award. Alas, while Capote sought a sense of the entire event, including trying to understand the actions and motives of the killers, Fanning wrote a less even-handed work. If The Staircase slanted toward the defense and suffered from a dearth of input from the prosecution and its sympathizers, Written in Blood slanted the other direction, offering only the prosecution’s perspective. A few thoughts:
* My first thought about the book was to feel pretty duped by The Staircase. Fanning describes a number of incontrovertible facts that should have been included in The Staircase. Bloody footprints that had been cleaned up were discovered with luminol after the fact. Kathleen’s blood was so dry the medical personnel didn’t get any on their uniforms. Todd Peterson kept violating police instructions to remain silent and off the phone. Somebody went online that first night and deleted a bunch of stuff from Peterson’s computer. The Staircase told us that the police found stuff on the computer, but they left out the fact that it had been deleted after Kathleen’s death. These deceptions by omission make the whole documentary suspect.
* At the same time, Fanning’s writing seethes with hatred for Peterson and his family. Instead of presenting the trial and facts on their own merits, she infuses her writing with caustic remarks about the defense team’s facial expressions and looks during the trial. I wonder if she got an extra dollar each time she used the word smirk.
* She also slants events in a very biased way. In particular, there are moments of the trial, featured in The Staircase, that Fanning paints in the most positive light possible. For instance, at one point prosecuting attorney Hardin tries to make hay with an expert witness who had written “Keep up the good work” in the inscription he’d written when giving his book to a prosecution expert. The expert protested that courtesy dictated he say something nice in the inscription, and that it wasn’t an endorsement of the officer as a forensic expert. Fanning ignores this reasonable explanation to suggest that Hardin had won the exchange. The visual record in The Staircase makes it quite clear that he did not.
* The most blatant example of Fanning’s slanted writing came when the D.A. called forth an expert witness who used false credentials. Rudolf produced a letter from the physics department chair of Temple University because this guy kept passing himself off as being affiliated with the university, when in fact he was not affiliated in any way. Fanning writes:
Then [Judge:] Hudson struck the testimony of Dr. Saami Shaibani, telling the jury that the witness had perjured himself in relating his credentials to the court. With that, the court day ended. Many jurors were frustrated, and uncomfortable as well. The public flaying of the witness by Rudolf was a distasteful sight to see. They found the testimony of Dr. Shaibani to be full of common sense and practical information that they could readily understand. They had wanted to consider it in their deliberations. Now they could not.
Investigator Art Holland bore the onerous chore of taking Dr. Shaibani to the airport. Holland was not convinced that Shaibani had perjured himself. None of it made sense. What he did see with clarity was a man destroyed, a career ruined. He wondered if this destruction was justified or Dr. Shaibani was just another victim of Michael Peterson. (353)
What? Rather than express some outrage or indignation or surprise that the prosecution had produced an expert witness–a person whose entire reason for being in court comes from their credentials–who had no credentials, she suggests that Rudolf was wrong to attack the man. She also does not follow up on the story or fact with the chair of the department.
* I thought Fanning did raise a good point in mentioning the fact that Rudolf did not introduce any testimony about where the alternate blowpoke was found. As a juror, I would have had to wonder about where that came from.
* To be fair, Fanning did include a huge amount of information — far more than The Staircase did. The volume of facts included in the early sections of the book are by far the most useful. As the book goes on and Fanning’s own opinion slants the presentation of events more and more, it becomes less satisfying.
So in the end, I’m still pretty unsatisfied. I tend to think that Peterson did kill Kathleen, but probably in a fit of rage after a fight. I also think the prosecution won by playing on the conservative attitudes of the jury, rather than the facts of the murder. Despite Fanning’s disdain for the attacks on the crime scene preservation, the lack of skull fractures on Kathleen, and the revelation of the blow poke, Rudolf did raise many points that cast serious doubts on the prosecution’s case. I wish the book had been more even handed, with less editorializing in descriptions of peoples’ actions.
So I decided to seek out a more balanced account of the trial. I got Written in Blood by Dianne Fanning. Fanning’s book was associated with Capote’s In Cold Blood, a gripping novelization of the trial, because they were nominated for the same award. Alas, while Capote sought a sense of the entire event, including trying to understand the actions and motives of the killers, Fanning wrote a less even-handed work. If The Staircase slanted toward the defense and suffered from a dearth of input from the prosecution and its sympathizers, Written in Blood slanted the other direction, offering only the prosecution’s perspective. A few thoughts:
* My first thought about the book was to feel pretty duped by The Staircase. Fanning describes a number of incontrovertible facts that should have been included in The Staircase. Bloody footprints that had been cleaned up were discovered with luminol after the fact. Kathleen’s blood was so dry the medical personnel didn’t get any on their uniforms. Todd Peterson kept violating police instructions to remain silent and off the phone. Somebody went online that first night and deleted a bunch of stuff from Peterson’s computer. The Staircase told us that the police found stuff on the computer, but they left out the fact that it had been deleted after Kathleen’s death. These deceptions by omission make the whole documentary suspect.
* At the same time, Fanning’s writing seethes with hatred for Peterson and his family. Instead of presenting the trial and facts on their own merits, she infuses her writing with caustic remarks about the defense team’s facial expressions and looks during the trial. I wonder if she got an extra dollar each time she used the word smirk.
* She also slants events in a very biased way. In particular, there are moments of the trial, featured in The Staircase, that Fanning paints in the most positive light possible. For instance, at one point prosecuting attorney Hardin tries to make hay with an expert witness who had written “Keep up the good work” in the inscription he’d written when giving his book to a prosecution expert. The expert protested that courtesy dictated he say something nice in the inscription, and that it wasn’t an endorsement of the officer as a forensic expert. Fanning ignores this reasonable explanation to suggest that Hardin had won the exchange. The visual record in The Staircase makes it quite clear that he did not.
* The most blatant example of Fanning’s slanted writing came when the D.A. called forth an expert witness who used false credentials. Rudolf produced a letter from the physics department chair of Temple University because this guy kept passing himself off as being affiliated with the university, when in fact he was not affiliated in any way. Fanning writes:
Then [Judge:] Hudson struck the testimony of Dr. Saami Shaibani, telling the jury that the witness had perjured himself in relating his credentials to the court. With that, the court day ended. Many jurors were frustrated, and uncomfortable as well. The public flaying of the witness by Rudolf was a distasteful sight to see. They found the testimony of Dr. Shaibani to be full of common sense and practical information that they could readily understand. They had wanted to consider it in their deliberations. Now they could not.
Investigator Art Holland bore the onerous chore of taking Dr. Shaibani to the airport. Holland was not convinced that Shaibani had perjured himself. None of it made sense. What he did see with clarity was a man destroyed, a career ruined. He wondered if this destruction was justified or Dr. Shaibani was just another victim of Michael Peterson. (353)
What? Rather than express some outrage or indignation or surprise that the prosecution had produced an expert witness–a person whose entire reason for being in court comes from their credentials–who had no credentials, she suggests that Rudolf was wrong to attack the man. She also does not follow up on the story or fact with the chair of the department.
* I thought Fanning did raise a good point in mentioning the fact that Rudolf did not introduce any testimony about where the alternate blowpoke was found. As a juror, I would have had to wonder about where that came from.
* To be fair, Fanning did include a huge amount of information — far more than The Staircase did. The volume of facts included in the early sections of the book are by far the most useful. As the book goes on and Fanning’s own opinion slants the presentation of events more and more, it becomes less satisfying.
So in the end, I’m still pretty unsatisfied. I tend to think that Peterson did kill Kathleen, but probably in a fit of rage after a fight. I also think the prosecution won by playing on the conservative attitudes of the jury, rather than the facts of the murder. Despite Fanning’s disdain for the attacks on the crime scene preservation, the lack of skull fractures on Kathleen, and the revelation of the blow poke, Rudolf did raise many points that cast serious doubts on the prosecution’s case. I wish the book had been more even handed, with less editorializing in descriptions of peoples’ actions.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
July 7, 2023
I am familiar with this case via documentary and fictionalized series. This book filled in a lot of details. I also read the accused/convicted's book with his personal views of the events. Fascinating and very sad, it destroyed families. Secrets, lies and unexpected deaths will do that.
April 2, 2024
Having just re-watched "The Staircase" on Netflix and done a bit of reading here and there on various forums about the Michael Peterson case, I was pleasantly surprised by all the additional information I learned from Diane Fanning's book about the Kathleen Peterson murder case.
Ms. Fanning is definitely very much on the side of the prosecution and very sympathetic to Kathleen's family and presents a lot of details I have never read elsewhere. "The Staircase" focuses so much on the blood evidence and the blow poke to the exclusion of anything else. But Fanning gives us details about Michael Peterson's temper (it really bothered me the horrible way he treated his dogs), his stealing and lying about his military service, how he forged documents to give himself the Ratliff estate, and the way he treated the Ratliff girls as cash cows.
I do believe Michael Peterson killed Kathleen, and left her to suffer a painful death. Fanning makes an interesting point that Peterson is probably has Narcissistic personality disorder, which Wikipedia describes as a "personality disorder with a long-term pattern of abnormal behavior characterized by exaggerated feelings of self-importance, excessive need for admiration, and a lack of empathy."
Vist my new blog - I Love True Crime Books!
Ms. Fanning is definitely very much on the side of the prosecution and very sympathetic to Kathleen's family and presents a lot of details I have never read elsewhere. "The Staircase" focuses so much on the blood evidence and the blow poke to the exclusion of anything else. But Fanning gives us details about Michael Peterson's temper (it really bothered me the horrible way he treated his dogs), his stealing and lying about his military service, how he forged documents to give himself the Ratliff estate, and the way he treated the Ratliff girls as cash cows.
I do believe Michael Peterson killed Kathleen, and left her to suffer a painful death. Fanning makes an interesting point that Peterson is probably has Narcissistic personality disorder, which Wikipedia describes as a "personality disorder with a long-term pattern of abnormal behavior characterized by exaggerated feelings of self-importance, excessive need for admiration, and a lack of empathy."
Vist my new blog - I Love True Crime Books!
August 16, 2018
If you thought the French documentary, The Staircase, was one-sided towards the defense, Written in Blood is certainly biased for the prosecution. While Fanning presents evidence not seen in The Staircase, she does so with such slanted language that it reduces her credibility as a presenter. For example, here are a couple of excerpts:
Pg 357 regarding defense witness Dr. Leestma: “Then he blathered about the wounds, trying to avoid giving a direct and definitive answer” (She later praises prosecution witness Duane Deaver, whose perjurious testimony later led to the retrial option for Peterson).
Pg 369 regarding DA Hardin: “He spoke in a soft, slow, low-key voice. His North Carolina accent caressed each word he spoke” (She continuously describes defense attorney Rudolf as a ruthless, uncaring, city-slicker).
There are many, many other examples of her biased language throughout the book! Being on the fence of the guilt/innocence of Michael Peterson, this account did nothing to help me in that decision. If anything, the inflammatory language made me feel slightly sympathetic for someone I could easily see as guilty.
Overall, this was my first time to read a book from the “true crime” genre. If this is how most of them are, I think this just might be my last.
Pg 357 regarding defense witness Dr. Leestma: “Then he blathered about the wounds, trying to avoid giving a direct and definitive answer” (She later praises prosecution witness Duane Deaver, whose perjurious testimony later led to the retrial option for Peterson).
Pg 369 regarding DA Hardin: “He spoke in a soft, slow, low-key voice. His North Carolina accent caressed each word he spoke” (She continuously describes defense attorney Rudolf as a ruthless, uncaring, city-slicker).
There are many, many other examples of her biased language throughout the book! Being on the fence of the guilt/innocence of Michael Peterson, this account did nothing to help me in that decision. If anything, the inflammatory language made me feel slightly sympathetic for someone I could easily see as guilty.
Overall, this was my first time to read a book from the “true crime” genre. If this is how most of them are, I think this just might be my last.
July 21, 2012
Really glad I didn't marry a guy with Peterson/Petersen a a last name...those wives seem not to fair too well. :-/
August 9, 2014
who is who?
What is it with the name Peterson and murder?
I recall that when I read this book at around the same time there was another guy also called Peterson who also murdered his wife. But there was also another Peterson who murdered his young pregnant wife.
I am trying to find out if Fatal Vows is a book I might buy. If that book is about the same case.
Fatal Vows is about Drew Peterson who killed his wife Kathleen and Stacy.
Then you have a Scott Peterson who killed his wife Lacy. Lacy Stacy. See why I am confused?
Drew Paterson also killed his wife Kathleen Savio. That name sounds so familiar.
Now Michael Peterson, the guy in this book also has a wife called Kathleen?
WTH.
I guess I am going to give fatal Vows a try. I can assure you that once I do I will have even more trouble remembering who is who.
------------------------------------------------------------------
ETA: Update August 9 2014 Checked my old reviews and apparently I liked this book of Diane best of the 3 (first) books of her.
What is it with the name Peterson and murder?
I recall that when I read this book at around the same time there was another guy also called Peterson who also murdered his wife. But there was also another Peterson who murdered his young pregnant wife.
I am trying to find out if Fatal Vows is a book I might buy. If that book is about the same case.
Fatal Vows is about Drew Peterson who killed his wife Kathleen and Stacy.
Then you have a Scott Peterson who killed his wife Lacy. Lacy Stacy. See why I am confused?
Drew Paterson also killed his wife Kathleen Savio. That name sounds so familiar.
Now Michael Peterson, the guy in this book also has a wife called Kathleen?
WTH.
I guess I am going to give fatal Vows a try. I can assure you that once I do I will have even more trouble remembering who is who.
------------------------------------------------------------------
ETA: Update August 9 2014 Checked my old reviews and apparently I liked this book of Diane best of the 3 (first) books of her.
January 17, 2016
If, like me, you saw The Stair Case on Sundance (or even before, on ABC) and found yourself wanting to know more, your options are Fanning's book or a much slighter effort by Aphrodite Jones. Both books suffer from not being informed by the defense's point of view. (Did the Peterson camp have an exclusivity agreement with Maha?*) And both books were written relatively quickly - not quite insta-books but almost. Still, I found Written in Blood worth reading and applaud Fanning for uncovering telling details about Peterson's time in Germany and his spending spree after Kathleen's death.
Fanning does try too hard on occasion to wring meaning out of the mundane. I also wish more space was given to the facts of the crime - the broken bone, etc. I enjoyed this book and applaud Ms. Fanning for her original research. She uncovered the sort of information and detail that begins to explain what is behind the many masks of Michael Peterson.
*Fanning has pointed out that the Peterson legal team did indeed have an exclusivity agreement with Maha.
Fanning does try too hard on occasion to wring meaning out of the mundane. I also wish more space was given to the facts of the crime - the broken bone, etc. I enjoyed this book and applaud Ms. Fanning for her original research. She uncovered the sort of information and detail that begins to explain what is behind the many masks of Michael Peterson.
*Fanning has pointed out that the Peterson legal team did indeed have an exclusivity agreement with Maha.
October 5, 2022
I had watched the Staircase, the doc and the dramatisation, listened to numerous podcasts about this trial and just wanted something more.
And something more I got.
But it did not grip me, the writing was ok, and the information and the added facts were nice to have, but it just was a sludge to get through. I don't know, it just was not presented in a very interesting manner for my liking.
Nice to have read it, but that's about it.
And something more I got.
But it did not grip me, the writing was ok, and the information and the added facts were nice to have, but it just was a sludge to get through. I don't know, it just was not presented in a very interesting manner for my liking.
Nice to have read it, but that's about it.
February 26, 2019
Ok. I've watched The Staircase. Like many people I went back and forth from episode to episode thinking he did it. He didn't do it. Ok, he did it. Nope, I don't this he did. This is one of the things that made that documentary series so interesting.
Then I heard Diane Fanning's interview of True Crime Obsessed. Apparently Patrick Hinds and Gillian Pensavalle are actually decent journalists even though they are not actually journalists. Maybe they are just decent people. The interview made me want to read this book to get "the other side" that The Staircase didn't show us.
I've read true crime books from prosecuting attorneys who appeared less biased than this book. The language was flowery and annoyed me at times. Don't get me wrong, I like poetry and flowers and rainbows, but I guess I prefer a more Joe Friday "just the facts, ma'am" approach to true crime. This story has enough drama and WTFs without any "helping" from a gung ho author.
Reading this in 2019, I do have the advantage of hindsight. When Fanning complains that David Rudolph is abusive to Duane Deaver during his cross examination it's just a little rich. Deaver apparently only wanted the justice system (according to Fanning) to be fair and to get to the truth. However, the whole reason Michael Peterson got out of jail was because Deaver lied about his qualifications and testing of evidence.
So yeah, if she had stuck to the facts, Fanning wouldn't have egg on her face. She bent over backwards at every turn to tell the reader how awesome, how great, how hard working the prosecution team was. She bent over backwards to extol the virtues of Candace Zambarini, Kathleen's sister. She bent over backwards to tell us how bent Michael Peterson is, how inappropriate David Rudolph was, and how privileged and entitled Michael's sons Clayton and Todd were.
Maybe all of her research is spot on. Maybe he did kill Kathleen. But I felt like Fanning was shoving this down my throat rather than trusting an intelligent reader to reach the proper (to her) conclusions. My inner "You're Not the Boss of Me" third grader dug her heels in even more.
Did he do it? Today I think yes. Yesterday I thought no. The only things I am convinced of fully are the two Ratliff girls had a horrible childhood getting passed around like that and I don't think I want to read anymore Diane Fanning books.
Then I heard Diane Fanning's interview of True Crime Obsessed. Apparently Patrick Hinds and Gillian Pensavalle are actually decent journalists even though they are not actually journalists. Maybe they are just decent people. The interview made me want to read this book to get "the other side" that The Staircase didn't show us.
I've read true crime books from prosecuting attorneys who appeared less biased than this book. The language was flowery and annoyed me at times. Don't get me wrong, I like poetry and flowers and rainbows, but I guess I prefer a more Joe Friday "just the facts, ma'am" approach to true crime. This story has enough drama and WTFs without any "helping" from a gung ho author.
Reading this in 2019, I do have the advantage of hindsight. When Fanning complains that David Rudolph is abusive to Duane Deaver during his cross examination it's just a little rich. Deaver apparently only wanted the justice system (according to Fanning) to be fair and to get to the truth. However, the whole reason Michael Peterson got out of jail was because Deaver lied about his qualifications and testing of evidence.
So yeah, if she had stuck to the facts, Fanning wouldn't have egg on her face. She bent over backwards at every turn to tell the reader how awesome, how great, how hard working the prosecution team was. She bent over backwards to extol the virtues of Candace Zambarini, Kathleen's sister. She bent over backwards to tell us how bent Michael Peterson is, how inappropriate David Rudolph was, and how privileged and entitled Michael's sons Clayton and Todd were.
Maybe all of her research is spot on. Maybe he did kill Kathleen. But I felt like Fanning was shoving this down my throat rather than trusting an intelligent reader to reach the proper (to her) conclusions. My inner "You're Not the Boss of Me" third grader dug her heels in even more.
Did he do it? Today I think yes. Yesterday I thought no. The only things I am convinced of fully are the two Ratliff girls had a horrible childhood getting passed around like that and I don't think I want to read anymore Diane Fanning books.
September 8, 2018
First - what is it about the last name Peterson and highly publicized cases of men accused of their wives' murders? Scott Peterson, Drew Peterson and Michael Peterson are all prime examples of men who have "erased" inconvenient wives as documented in Marilee Strong's book _Erased: Missing Women, Murdered Wives_. So much true crime documents the phenomenon of husband-on-wife murder, and Written in Blood is a good, solid entry in that particular niche. Author Diane Fanning does a good job laying out the sad facts of the case and drawing a portrait of Michael Peterson, a strange, narcissistic man whose behavior one wishes had struck those around him as suspicious before two trusting women had to die. My heart especially went out to the 2 girls whose mother, Liz Ratliff, a close friend of Peterson and his first wife, died under suspicious circumstances (most likely murdered by Peterson for her money), but who were then raised by the capricious and randomly cruel Peterson and remained loyal to him throughout his trial for his second wife Kathleen's murder.
One issue I did have was with the narrator of the audiobook, which I listened to. Rob Granniss has a monotonal voice with a slight speech impediment that took some getting used to. But I did appreciate his way with the Southern accents of some of the attorneys in the trial section of the book.
One issue I did have was with the narrator of the audiobook, which I listened to. Rob Granniss has a monotonal voice with a slight speech impediment that took some getting used to. But I did appreciate his way with the Southern accents of some of the attorneys in the trial section of the book.
August 31, 2018
When this case went to trial I found it intriguing that a published fiction author was on trial for murdering his wife but never pursued following the case as it was happening since I had just had a baby and I was 24 where true crime didn't really interest me at the time. When I watched the documentary "The Staircase" on Netflix I wasn't sure the jury had came back with a verdict I would have given if I was a member of that jury.
After more research from a peaked curiosity, I read articles addressing the owl theory and how biased the Netflix documentary was in the favor of the defense. One day I stumbled upon a board on Reddit about this case and saw this book was suggested by many posts. I am glad I took this advice since I'm prone to rarely follow advice anyway. :)
The book provides more evidence in the case that the documentary edited out if it wasn't in Michael Peterson's favor. People Michael knew in his past were interviewed and gave a version of Michael who has a bad tempter, is cruel to animals and yelled at his wife and family a lot from first hand accounts or things Kathleen Peterson confided to others. If you were on the fence about his guilt or would like to learn more about this case, I highly recommend "Written In Blood".
After more research from a peaked curiosity, I read articles addressing the owl theory and how biased the Netflix documentary was in the favor of the defense. One day I stumbled upon a board on Reddit about this case and saw this book was suggested by many posts. I am glad I took this advice since I'm prone to rarely follow advice anyway. :)
The book provides more evidence in the case that the documentary edited out if it wasn't in Michael Peterson's favor. People Michael knew in his past were interviewed and gave a version of Michael who has a bad tempter, is cruel to animals and yelled at his wife and family a lot from first hand accounts or things Kathleen Peterson confided to others. If you were on the fence about his guilt or would like to learn more about this case, I highly recommend "Written In Blood".
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
November 12, 2018
Was intrigued to read this after watching The Staircase on Netflix and listening to a BBC podcast about the same subject. I appreciated knowing more of the backstories of the parties involved. Definitely interesting!
November 20, 2019
I've been meaning to read this because The Staircase was so biased. This is biased, too, but there are details here that are black and white and tell you everything you need to know. Very interesting.
January 21, 2016
I have seen The Staircase documentary which was interesting, so I will put this on my list.
October 29, 2018
I enjoyed this more than any documentary that I have watched. Brings up more of the evidence and is not completely biased.
March 8, 2019
One of the best true crime novels I've read recently. If you've seen The Staircase on Netflix, this is the book about that case.
August 22, 2018
Diane Fanning is one of my favourite true crime authors. Her writing is always excellent and her research very thorough. You can't miss with one of her books.
This is a great book to read while watching the French doco on the case called, "The Staircase". There are many docos with that same name on this case (at least three...), but the French doco is the most comprehensive. I watched the whole series, even the new episodes. Like many of the books I have read, I just don't think the husband with zero history of psychopathic behaviour can just up and heinously kill one day. Three Petersons are believed to be homicidal wife killers...Michael Peterson (2001), Scott Peterson (2002) and Drew Peterson (2004 & 2007). What is going on with that surname? Maybe more than we think we know. At any rate I don't believe Peterson is the killer here. It was more than apparent to me when watching the doco, but this book shows his seamy underbelly...and that is important to know. He had more demons in his past than I had thought, but I knew he was no angel and lying came easy to him. It also was revealed (after the book was published) that forensics expert Duane Deaver was a charlatan and his theories were pure bunk and chicanery. This type of scientific corruption happens more than you think in many true crime court cases. It's annoying, unnecessary and unconstitutional. Why do so many of these men supposedly kill their wives with no strong motive? It doesn't compute. The Judge during the trial also eventually admits now that he shouldn't have let certain "evidence" in. Too many problems were exposed for me to believe Peterson killed his wife. What if it was someone else?
There is more to this story than the book illustrates so you will have much to catch up on, but it is a great book to take you up to the conviction. I just don't think Peterson was the killer. His 911 call seems quite sincere and real, his character is not so great (the book explains, credibly, that MP was not as altruistic as one would believe if they had just seen "The Staircase" and not read any book on the case) but I just can't see him as the real killer. Who was it then? That's what we need to know. In cases like his though, not only does the family suffer through the murder of the loved one, the family contentiously splits and that is another tragedy we don't really think about enough. It happened here and that is also a Tragedy.
This is a great book to read while watching the French doco on the case called, "The Staircase". There are many docos with that same name on this case (at least three...), but the French doco is the most comprehensive. I watched the whole series, even the new episodes. Like many of the books I have read, I just don't think the husband with zero history of psychopathic behaviour can just up and heinously kill one day. Three Petersons are believed to be homicidal wife killers...Michael Peterson (2001), Scott Peterson (2002) and Drew Peterson (2004 & 2007). What is going on with that surname? Maybe more than we think we know. At any rate I don't believe Peterson is the killer here. It was more than apparent to me when watching the doco, but this book shows his seamy underbelly...and that is important to know. He had more demons in his past than I had thought, but I knew he was no angel and lying came easy to him. It also was revealed (after the book was published) that forensics expert Duane Deaver was a charlatan and his theories were pure bunk and chicanery. This type of scientific corruption happens more than you think in many true crime court cases. It's annoying, unnecessary and unconstitutional. Why do so many of these men supposedly kill their wives with no strong motive? It doesn't compute. The Judge during the trial also eventually admits now that he shouldn't have let certain "evidence" in. Too many problems were exposed for me to believe Peterson killed his wife. What if it was someone else?
There is more to this story than the book illustrates so you will have much to catch up on, but it is a great book to take you up to the conviction. I just don't think Peterson was the killer. His 911 call seems quite sincere and real, his character is not so great (the book explains, credibly, that MP was not as altruistic as one would believe if they had just seen "The Staircase" and not read any book on the case) but I just can't see him as the real killer. Who was it then? That's what we need to know. In cases like his though, not only does the family suffer through the murder of the loved one, the family contentiously splits and that is another tragedy we don't really think about enough. It happened here and that is also a Tragedy.
September 12, 2018
Eh. Although I am a true crime podcast fan, of the In The Dark, Accused, Dirty John variety, I don’t read a lot of these pulpy paperback true crime books. This book certainly presents a necessary counterpoint to The Staircase documentary, and, if you found yourself saying “Why did the police ever arrest this great guy?” during the documentary, you will certainly find out why through the early pages of this book. (And, if you left The Staircase suspicious of Peterson, you will certainly find evidence to support your bad vibes from the documentary.) However, one it gets to the trial, the balance—and language—tilt SO heavily toward the prosecution that even sympathetic readers who think Peterson is a narcissistic killer will find themselves saying “COME ON!” aloud and doing some eye rolls. The praise of the blood splatter expert does not stand the test of time, for sure, but everyone on the prosecution gets painted in a warm sepia-tinted Southern glow. First half 4 and second half is barely a 2.
July 25, 2018
I'd heard about this case years ago, because yes, there's something seriously wrong with me and I'm addicted to true crime stories! Before we got rid of TV, I used to watch Forensic Files and similar shows religiously. There were several different shows which covered the story of murderer Michael Peterson back then. Then The Staircase comes out and I'm hearing/seeing people thinking this guy is innocent. Huh??! Um,no. Just no. I had to find everything and anything I could get my hands on to remind me of the real details of the case.
Very sad for Kathleen's family and loved ones. And very sad for the Ratliff sisters, who may not yet realize what their "father" is and what he has done to them.
Very sad for Kathleen's family and loved ones. And very sad for the Ratliff sisters, who may not yet realize what their "father" is and what he has done to them.
March 19, 2019
As soon as I finished watching The Staircase, I knew I wanted to read more about the case, especially from the side of the prosecution.
I couldn’t put this book down.
It was interesting to find out more about Kathleen and Elizabeth and their lives before Michael.
The book featured information that wasn’t in the movie and I found it very interesting.
While The Staircase focused very much on defending Michael, this book was all about the prosecution.
I really did enjoy the book and it has given me a lot to think about in relation to the case.
I couldn’t put this book down.
It was interesting to find out more about Kathleen and Elizabeth and their lives before Michael.
The book featured information that wasn’t in the movie and I found it very interesting.
While The Staircase focused very much on defending Michael, this book was all about the prosecution.
I really did enjoy the book and it has given me a lot to think about in relation to the case.
January 5, 2019
This book shows a rush to judgement against Michael Peterson. I believe he is guilty and prosecution knew he was guilty and got laxed with the evidence. The crime scene was contaminated and the blood spatter expert lied about how many cases he worked giving Peterson a way off from his prison sentence. This is written before the recent events and Peterson has served 8 years but now is out on a plea of guilty manslaughter. Very interesting book!
July 8, 2018
Good counter to Netflix's doc, "The Staircase".
This book gives a more rounded recounting of the Kathleen Hunt Peterson murder. While the documentary attempts to show Michael Peterson in the best possible light, this book provides facts from autopsy reports, court transcripts, etc, many that were left out from Netflix's "The Staircase."
This book gives a more rounded recounting of the Kathleen Hunt Peterson murder. While the documentary attempts to show Michael Peterson in the best possible light, this book provides facts from autopsy reports, court transcripts, etc, many that were left out from Netflix's "The Staircase."
July 10, 2018
This is a good complementary book to "The Staircase" documentary/opinion piece. The book gives a little more background on the family and the dynamics. This book is a very quick read.
November 20, 2018
Listened to this on audiobook and learned a lot. All I can say, after reading this book, is that there is much more to this story and the accused than was revealed in the Netflix documentary.
September 2, 2019
Intriguing, very clear and straightfoward
Such a relief to read a great true crime story that's not layered with bull****! Thank you, Diane Fanning, for interesting truthfulness.
Such a relief to read a great true crime story that's not layered with bull****! Thank you, Diane Fanning, for interesting truthfulness.
November 18, 2019
General true crime. I've listened to the Generation Why on this case and found the additional details helpful. I liked that the book never really entertained alternatives when it seems so obvious.
September 3, 2018
This was the best book I have read for a while. Riveting. Hard to put aside. Having previously watched 'The Staircase' this in depth book provided the detail one needed to make a reasoned conclusion on the innocence or otherwise of Michael Peterson. The book concludes at the end of the first trial and apart from a short paragraph does not cover subsequent events and the 'Alford Plea'. In my opinion Michael Peterson is a devious and violent man with a quick temper. The book provides plenty of evidence he is a liar. His sexual exploits with a male escort were something I don't think Kathleen would have approved of despite Peterson trying to reassure us she would have given this behaviour the stamp of approval. I found it hard to find any redeeming qualities in this man. Not one person at the trial took the stand to extol his virtues and values. He is very hard to like and seems to have many characteristics of a narcissist - 'an infatuation of self and a ruthless pursuit of one's gratification, dominance and ambition'. In my opinion the real heros who emerge in the book were Caitlin and Candace both strong women relentless in their pursuit of justice for the murder of their mother and sister. The trial found Michael Peterson guilty of the murder of Kathleen. However, the perjury of a key prosecution witness lead to a new trial being ordered. Peterson likely realised a new trial would not change the verdict and so pleaded guilty to voluntary manslaughter. This exceptionally well written and researched book left me with all the evidence to conclude Peterson was guilty of murder. Unanswered is how many murders.
February 24, 2010
This is the only book I've ever purchased in a Duane Reade.
It caught my eye because I had recently watched Jean-Xavier de Lestrade's documentary "The Staircase," a fascinating investigation of the Michael Peterson case but told largely from the defense's point of view. DA Jim Hardin and his posse seemed like a collection of small-brained hacks (ADA Mike Nifong would go on to infamy in the 2006 Duke University rape case scandal), but de Lestrade didn't have much access to the prosecution or Kathleen Atwater's family. I honestly thought reading something arguing the state's case might be an interesting complement to the film.
I was so terribly wrong.
I don't mean to exaggerate, but this really stands as one of the most awful books I have ever picked up. There is so much to criticize about Fanning's leaden prose (endless cliche, childishly one-sided and ham-handed characterizations of all parties involved, Wikipedia entries rehashed for splashes of local color, etc.), it's just tiring recalling it all. Just stay away from this crap, and move on to better titles in the St. Martin's crime stable.
It caught my eye because I had recently watched Jean-Xavier de Lestrade's documentary "The Staircase," a fascinating investigation of the Michael Peterson case but told largely from the defense's point of view. DA Jim Hardin and his posse seemed like a collection of small-brained hacks (ADA Mike Nifong would go on to infamy in the 2006 Duke University rape case scandal), but de Lestrade didn't have much access to the prosecution or Kathleen Atwater's family. I honestly thought reading something arguing the state's case might be an interesting complement to the film.
I was so terribly wrong.
I don't mean to exaggerate, but this really stands as one of the most awful books I have ever picked up. There is so much to criticize about Fanning's leaden prose (endless cliche, childishly one-sided and ham-handed characterizations of all parties involved, Wikipedia entries rehashed for splashes of local color, etc.), it's just tiring recalling it all. Just stay away from this crap, and move on to better titles in the St. Martin's crime stable.
October 14, 2020
After watching the documentary The Staircase, I had such an appetite for more information about the murder of Kathleen Peterson. I saw that this book had mixed reviews, but I went for it anyway because I could not get enough of this case.
The Staircase is somewhat biased in favour of the defense, but I do think that, in fairness, that is due to the access the documentarians got to the defense team. The prosecution just wasn't as available to them, and so we saw much more of the defense attorneys and the Peterson family. And that kind of access allows the viewer to see those people as much more three-dimensional, because of the time spent with them.
This book, on the other hand, is VERY biased toward the prosecution. Almost comically so. I do think that Michael Peterson murdered Kathleen, so I am a reader who is already on board, so to speak. But sometimes Fanning's descriptions of the various players are ridiculous to me. She describes the defense attorneys as cold and ruthless and showboating, but has nothing but praise for the prosecutors. She also describes scenes that we have seen in The Staircase for ourselves, but describes them in bizarre ways (always favouring the prosecution, of course). I would have preferred a more balanced point of view.
The Staircase is somewhat biased in favour of the defense, but I do think that, in fairness, that is due to the access the documentarians got to the defense team. The prosecution just wasn't as available to them, and so we saw much more of the defense attorneys and the Peterson family. And that kind of access allows the viewer to see those people as much more three-dimensional, because of the time spent with them.
This book, on the other hand, is VERY biased toward the prosecution. Almost comically so. I do think that Michael Peterson murdered Kathleen, so I am a reader who is already on board, so to speak. But sometimes Fanning's descriptions of the various players are ridiculous to me. She describes the defense attorneys as cold and ruthless and showboating, but has nothing but praise for the prosecutors. She also describes scenes that we have seen in The Staircase for ourselves, but describes them in bizarre ways (always favouring the prosecution, of course). I would have preferred a more balanced point of view.
February 12, 2019
This is truly the least objective or impartial book I've ever read. While it was full of interesting facts about the case, the writers obvious prejudice and sycophancy for Kathleen's family made it hard to swallow. Noone knows what happened that night for sure except the 2 people present, but what you do know for sure after reading this is the author's own opinion.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 103 reviews