Three affidavits support Peterson's murderous owl theory

Staff writerAugust 19, 2010 

— A lawyer for Michael Peterson filed three affidavits this week that further support the theory that an owl killed the novelist's wife.

T. Lawrence Pollard, one of Peterson's attorneys, believes the written statements from three experts are enough to convince Superior Court Judge Orlando Hudson to order the state Medical Examiner's Office to turn over all documentation related to Kathleen Peterson's autopsy, including photos, videos, notes and audio recordings. If granted, the information would be used to prove that Kathleen Peterson was killed by a owl, not from blunt force trauma.

The request follows a News & Observer series that questioned the investigative tactics of State Bureau of Investigation agents. It was the testimony of SBI Agent Duane Deaver that helped convict Peterson of killing his wife, who was found dead at the base of a staircase in a pool of blood in 2001. Inspired by the N&O stories, Peterson's children, who recently wrote a letter to the paper, want their father to have a new trial. The series has also led to an investigation of the agency by Attorney General Roy Cooper.

Pollard has asked Hudson to hold off his ruling until all of Peterson's lawyers have met and finalized paperwork. A ruling may be made sometime next week, the lawyer said.

"It does give us new hope," he said about the affidavits. "We know that we got the feather. We know that it happened late at night. We know that there was a small wooden sliver recovered that was determined to be a tree limb. The SBI crime lab did not examine the feathers. They assumed these feathers didn't have anything to do with the crime."

The affidavits also included a letter from Robert C. Fleischer, head of the Smithsonian Center of Conversation, who wrote that he was willing to conduct a DNA test on the feathers to determine the species of bird they came from.

Dr. Alan van Norman, in the first affidavit, wrote that two lacerations on Kathleen Peterson's scalp appear to be a pair, with each laceration having "the appearance of a trident with three limbs converging to a point at roughly 30 degrees from each other and a fourth limb converging to the same point at nearly 180 degrees from the center limb of the other three limbs."

A former U.S. Army surgeon and current North Dakota neurosurgeon and owl expert, Norman recently wrote about owl feathers in The Bismarck Tribune. He said in the affidavit that the injuries are not consistent with a blunt instrument, but rather a large bird of prey.

"The multiple wounds present suggest to me that an owl and Ms. Peterson somehow became entangled," he wrote. "Perhaps the owl got tangled in her hair or perhaps she grabbed the owl's foot."

Dr. Patrick T. Redig, a professor of veterinary medicine at the University of Minnesota, also agreed with the owl theory.

"In my professional opinion, the hypothesized attack to the face and back of the head resulting in the various punctures and lacerations visible in the autopsy photographs is entirely within the behavioral repertoire of large owls," he wrote in the second affidavit.

Kate P. Davis, executive director of Raptors of the Rockies, located in western Montana, wrote in the third affidavit that it is not uncommon for owls to attack people and that they can kill species much larger than themselves.

"The lacerations on Mrs. Peterson's scalp look very much like those made by a raptor's talons, especially if she had forcibly torn the bird from the back of her head," she wrote. "That would explain the feathers found in her hand and the many hairs pulled out by the root ball, broken or cut. The size and configuration of the lacerations could certainly indicate the feet of a Barred Owl." or 919-932-2025

News & Observer is pleased to provide this opportunity to share information, experiences and observations about what's in the news. Some of the comments may be reprinted elsewhere in the site or in the newspaper. We encourage lively, open debate on the issues of the day, and ask that you refrain from profanity, hate speech, personal comments and remarks that are off point. Thank you for taking the time to offer your thoughts.

Commenting FAQs | Terms of Service