questions about the real case

Hi KAnn,

I can answer some of your questions. I don't think Caitlyn has reunited with her stepsisters that I know of. It would definitely require some serious maturity and letting go for them to be so polarized on Michael Peterson's guilt and still find some common ground. Yes, it's totally sad. Oh and Michael Peterson was not Caitlyn's father. He was her mother's second husband. Her father was supporting her through the trial and was in court with her on various occasions. She never referred to Michael Peterson as her father..always Michael. That was an error in the film.

I can't blame those girls for being so vulnerable to the mind control of a sociopath like Peterson. They'd lost both their parents at a young and vulnerable age and he swooped in and took charge of their lives leading them to believe they couldn't live without him. That was clear (his perception) on the Maha docudrama (no it really wasn't an unbiased documentary). Which leads to yes, the film that David Rudolf invited and promoted (unbelievable as it's defense counsel 101 to tell your murder indicted client to SHUT UP and not talk to anyone but he had cameras on them, their strategy, their staged "impromptu" scenes practically 24/7) was made and shown in an 8 hour mini series on the Sundance Channel. An abbreviated version was shown on one of the nightly network shows...Dateline I believe. It was also shown on the BBC channel. It was highly oriented toward showing the producer's opinion that Michael Peterson was railroaded and tried because of his bisexuality. Every time those filmmakers spoke of it, they referenced that opinion which has/had no basis in fact. The jurors said they DISREGARDED that evidence in making their decision based on the forensic evidence. Oh and the filmmakers were male and from France, not the British female portrayed in the film. No idea if "something was going on" between either of the filmmakers and Peterson.

At one point some viewers made a list of the critical elements of the case which convicted him that were missing from the film--I think it was in the 60's.

The filmmakers had an agenda and carried it through--to show how a man, in the "unjust" American justice system can be railroaded to conviction based on something as simple as his sexual preference and small minded Southerners. That's fine if that's their opinion, but again, it has no basis in fact whatsoever.

On to Ratliff, the murder there, if you are to believe Peterson commited it, which I do, was based much like his wife's on financial motives. When Elizabeth Ratliff lost her husband to mysterious circumstances suddenly with two very small children, clearly she was depressed and devastated. Who wouldn't be? Michael Peterson, ever the opportunist when it came to women, swept in to her life and commandered her estate/will planning. Although she had family, sisters, in the States , she left her children to him and Patty shortly before she was murdered. It is also alleged by her family that her signature on her will or some other important document pertaining to her estate was forged. The money she had set aside for her children from the insurance from her husband's death mysteriously "disappeared". Michael Peterson took control of those girls, left his wife Patty to raise his two sons independently while he lived, in another country raising the girls and living off their income. Having lost both of their parents, one being a military situation, they came with not only the estate, but a monthly income. It is opined that he never formally adopted them because in so doing, he would have lost some of those benefits.

While in Germany, Michael Peterson also stole from another woman. A friend of his wife's. While they were visiting this friend, Peterson stole her debit card, rooted through her office for her PIN number and withdrew over the 4 day visit, the maximum each day totally 1000.00. She did not press charges but he copped to it (and Patty was aware) and between he and Patty paid back part of it. The full amount was never repaid. This is all outlined in Diane Fanning's book "Written In Blood" which is a great read.

So you see, he lived off women in some fashion or another his entire adult life whether it be his first wife who was the primary bread winner (who he never divorced nor paid child support to as she raised their children single handedly--actually he manipulated her to cosign for that mansion while he was involved with his then girlfriend, Kathleen!), Elizabeth Ratliff's estate and the income from her children and then Kathleen. When he saw an opportunity to live the life he felt he was entitled to, he killed women to achieve even more income from them. This was his pattern and thank God he can't do it again although I suspect he will try to rope in some unsuspecting woman, with money of course, while in prison to "support" him there. That's what he does.

In my opinion of course.

[deleted]