MovieChat Forums > Soupçons Discussion > The 911 Call

The 911 Call

posted 8 years ago by schall1991
9 replies | jump to latest

Let me start by saying this - most of the documentary I found Michael Peterson to be a likeable person. I know others have described him as "slimy and pretentious" or whatever, but hey, he is an affluent writer do that is to be expected. With that being said, one of the few things that actually made me realize that he was probably guilty was the 911 call. First off, he seemed very certain that she had fallen down the stairs. Given the look of the crime scene, that's quite a stretch of the imagination (even if it was the truth). However, the thing that REALLY got to me was how not once did he say anything along the lines of "There is so much blood. Please, we need help, there is SO much blood!" or something like that... maybe I'm wrong, but I feel like that would be the common and natural response.

[–] gothbreed 8 years ago

Interesting.^^ What made me suspicious regarding the call, was neither of the things you mentioned, but instead the way he said "I don't know", when he was asked a question (I have unfortunately forgot what the question was).
That part, was the only thing of the call that made me react; there was something in the tone that did not sound genuine.
That being said, I am still on the fence regarding his guilt, as I have not read through the trials session by session and simply know too little about the case to judge one way or the other.

[–] hershiser2 8 years ago

He said "I don't know" to the question: "Who many stairs did she fall down?" How would he know if he wasn't there? "15... 20? I don't know." I think he was thinking she may have fallen from the top and looked up the stairs and did a quick estimate on how many there were.... so the "I don't know" is not a big deal at all.

[–] gothbreed 8 years ago

You misunderstood me a bit. It was not the words in themselves I thought sounded acted (As you said, that response in itself was not odd, saying that he did not know), but it was the way he said the words; that is, the speach melody of it.

[–] danevito 7 years ago

My suspicion to the 911 call is the fact he hang up and called again. Almost like he was afraid to say something wrong if in fact it was an act, and an act is hard to sustain for longer periods of time.

If you are genuine calling 911 you never hang up, its your lifeline to get help ASAP.

[–] Alex_Askew 7 years ago

I see what you're saying, and I can understand how his intonation of that phrase sounded off to you. It could sound a little like he "slipped out of character", or like he was a little annoyed that he was supposed to answer this question that hadn't been part of his anticipated "script". I can see that. But I hear it as someone whose reaction to that question is rather, "At a time like this, who cares??? How am I supposed to know how many? You want me to count them? I don't even know if she fell down the whole thing or like 2 steps. THERE IS BLOOD EVERYWHERE, WHO CARES ABOUT STAIRS??"

I don't know if he's guilty, I'm actually inclined to think not, though I wouldn't be surprised if he was, but I can definitely imagine an innocent person phrasing that "I don't know" the same way. Especially considering that this particular person shows little if any emotion EVER, so it seems within his normal affect.

[–] schall1991 8 years ago

To be honest, I did some more research and can't decide if he was guilty or not. The "Owl Theory" is pretty convincing to me, especially when you look at the lacerations to the head and then compare those with Owl talons. Whether he is guilty or not, I think Michael Peterson is a very interesting character. I basically live in Durham - I wonder if he still lives here?

[–] itsahoverboard 7 years ago

It was an owl. Talon marks on her head. Feathers found in her hand. Go look at a photo of the lacerations again. Don't be presumptuous, it's how stuff like this happens and innocent families are torn apart.

[–] Slayman421 7 years ago

Guilty or not, how he handled the 911 call put the target on him for sure. Had he said "something happened to her" it wouldve opened a ton of options for accusers. Saying "she fell" only gives two options... She fell or she was made to look like she fell. That puts all eyes on him as the only other party at the house.

[–] Apophos 7 years ago

At the end of the day the prosecution proved nothing. There was so much reasonable doubt the jurors should have decided within minutes. Their specialists were biased and useless. Det. Holland shouldn't ever be allowed to give evidence again.