La criminologa Ursula Franco smonta la bufala che vuole che Zodiac e il Mostro di Firenze siano la stessa persona (intervista)

La busta inviata a Silvia Della Monica con il lembo di pelle di Nadine Mauriot

Le Cronache Lucane, 14 giugno 2018

Dottoressa cosa ne pensa della teoria Zodiac uguale Mostro di Firenze?

E’ una boiata, è la ciliegina sulla torta di una delle pagine più nere della criminologia italiana. Quello del Mostro di Firenze che ha ucciso 16 persone, è un caso giudiziario irrisolto di cui dobbiamo vergognarci internazionalmente, non perché chi ha indagato non abbia identificato il serial killer nostrano ma perché ha mostrato di non saper nulla di delitti seriali; gli inquirenti e i giudici, non solo hanno fantasticato di vendite di “feticci” e “festini” ma hanno distrutto le vite di soggetti estranei ai fatti.

Un messaggio inviato da Zodiac alla stampa

E le lettere inviate dal Mostro e da Zodiac?

E’ comune che i serial killers inviino missive di sfida agli inquirenti, gli permette di tenere alti i livelli di cortisolo, adrenalina e noradrenalina, che sono gli ormoni dello stress, adorano il rischio e amano stare al centro dell’attenzione. La riprova del desiderio di palcoscenico dei serial killers è Angelo Izzo, un assassino sociopatico che, negli anni, ha preteso di fornire ai magistrati informazioni sulla strage di piazza Fontana, sulla strage di Bologna e quella di piazza della Loggia, sugli omicidi di Mino Pecorelli, Fausto e Iaio e Piersanti Mattarella, sulla morte di Giorgiana Masi, su molti altri episodi di terrorismo e di mafia, sulla violenza sessuale subita da Franca Rame e infine sulla scomparsa di Rossella Corazzin, lo ha fatto solo perché si tornasse a parlare di lui.

Cosa c’è in comune tra le lettere inviate da Zodiac e quelle del Mostro di Firenze?

Nulla. Quell’insieme di segni zodiacali e numeri mostrati in televisione non sono mai stati attribuiti al Mostro di Firenze. Nel caso del serial killer italiano abbiamo un’unica certezza, ovvero che egli abbia inviato un lembo di pelle di Nadine Mauriot, una delle sue ultime due vittime, all’interno di una busta con l’indirizzo scritto con lettere ritagliate dai giornali, a Silvia Della Monica, un magistrato che si stava occupando del suo caso, il resto sono lettere inviate da mitomani, qualche migliaio.

Perché il mostro di Firenze e Zodiac non possono essere la stessa persona?

Zodiac avrebbe rivendicato anche gli omicidi italiani firmandosi Zodiac. E’ nella natura umana attribuirsi ciò che ci appartiene.

E poi per un serial killer il legame con il territorio è vitale.

In caso di reati seriali commessi da serial killers stanziali, una tecnica per determinare in quale area viva l’offender è lo studio dei luoghi in cui commette i suoi crimini da un punto di vista geografico. Un serial killer che colpisce sempre nella stessa area mostra di aver uno stretto legame con il territorio in cui opera, tanto che grazie ad un modello comportamentale detto Geographic profiling si può delimitare l’area in cui il soggetto vive e anche ipotizzare se si muova o meno a bordo di un mezzo di trasporto.
Questo modello comportamentale parte dal presupposto che un soggetto selezioni le sue vittime vicino a casa e che quindi viva nell’area all’interno del suo raggio d’azione. Le zone in cui l’offender colpisce rientrano in una ‘comfort zone’, un’area dove si sente al sicuro, area che, nella maggior parte dei casi, non è nella cosiddetta zona cuscinetto a ridosso di casa sua, in quanto in quell’area teme di venir facilmente riconosciuto.
I luoghi dove l’offender si sente al sicuro sono quelli che frequenta e dove ha l’opportunità di incontrare le sue vittime; le ‘comfort zone’ possono essere multiple; luoghi, non solo vicini a casa sua ma anche al posto di lavoro o alla casa dei suoi familiari.

Va da sé che difficilmente un serial killer poteva essere di casa a San Casciano in Val di Pesa e a Vallejo… siamo seri.

Annunci

Analysis of some excerpts from Frederick Mueller’s interviews with investigators

Dr Leslie J Denis Mueller’s last picture on Cottonwood Creek, Colorado

On May 3, 2008, while Leslie Jeanne Denis and Frederick Harold Mueller, were hiking near Lake City, Colorado, Leslie died by drowning.

According with undersheriff Robert Burden, Fred Mueller told him that Leslie died by accident “as he took the picture, a bird flew by, the bluebird appeared to startle the dog and that as she was getting up, she suddenly started going backwards. And she did a swan dive, just like head and shoulders and just slides like mush into the channel”.

Hinsdale County sheriff Ron Bruce and undersheriff Robert Burden didn’t believe Fred Mueller’s story.

Sheriff Ron Bruce

Fred Mueller had scratches on his face and an investigator found a pair of broken glasses belonging to Fred and what appeared to be signs of a struggle in the snow near the scene.

According with the autopsy report by doctor Jerry Gray, Leslie Mueller had no injuries despite her husband said she fell from a cliff about 17 feet above the creek. There was no blood on Leslie’s clothes and no damages.

Prosecutor Matthew Durkin said that the evidence suggested Dr Leslie Mueller fought with her husband and that she was then held down in the water by him.

Mueller wasn’t the one to speak with the 911 operator.

Meuller left Leslie in the water and went to Justin Sparks’ home; Sparks, who had no knowledge of what had just happened to Leslie, called 911 and Fred Mueller didn’t speak with the operator, not even in second place, to give further details. Often people with a guilty knowledge prefer to delegate somebody else to call for help not to face the stress of a deceptive call not. Mueller too chose not to risk to be caught in his lies by the 911 operator.

Justin Sparks, the neighbour that called 911 and found Leslie’s lifeless body was suspicious of Fred Mueller behaviour, during the trial he said: “He would act kind of frantic, one second, and then, the next second, he would… he was talking to me very nonchalance and normal almost felt like he was acting more than being sincere. I just started getting a kind of bad feeling about the whole situation”. Sparks described to the jury a way of acting of people with a guilty knowledge, Fred Mueller was unable to act as a grieving husband because, after the death of his wife, his real and only feeling was relief. 

Few hours after his wife death Fred Mueller told undersheriff Burden that he and Leslie had sex the morning of May 3; ten months after, during an interview with a a CBI agent, Mueller said that a “good autopsy” on his wife’s body could have revealed that they had sex in the morning she died. This revelation is sensitive, it opens to a planned murder not to a second degree murder. The morning of the murder, Fred Mueller made love to his wife on purpose, to show the coroner their marriage wasn’t in trouble.

In 2012 Frederick Mueller was charged with murdering his wife, Dr. Leslie Jeanne Denis Mueller by prosecutor Matthew Durkin. The trial ended in a mistrial.

Frederick Mueller had been tried a second time for the murder of his wife, Leslie, few months later (prosecutor Ryan Brackley) but the jury failed to reach a unanimous verdict on the defendant’s guilt again and the judge declared a mistrial.

Fred Mueller  on Cottonwood Creek, Colorado

Here some excerpts of a conversation Fred Mueller had with sheriff Ron Bruce in the kitchen of his house:

What we look for in the following experts is for Fred Mueller to tell the truth about what happened to his wife Leslie and to issue a reliable denial.

We look for him to say freely “I didn’t kill my wife Leslie” and “I am telling the truth”. This would be the “wall of truth”. The “wall of truth” is an impenetrable psychological barrier that often leads innocent people to few words, as the subject has no need to persuade anyone of anything.

We begin every statement analysis expecting truth, and it is the unexpected that confronts us as possibly deceptive.

Fred Mueller: (unintelligible) you know (unintelligible) it’s all my fault, we had a camera, we started taking photos, she took fews of me, I took some of her… uhh… I suggested that she take a picture with her dog and it’s… it’s a border collies its very… it’s an extremely scary dog she is… looks at me, I take a picture… uhm… I think (unintelligible), I think… uhh… like a bird, kind of floaters by… the dog just jumps out and she is turning and… and its like… its like her feet went out from under…

“you know” shows an acute awareness of the audience.  

“it’s all my fault” sounds as an embedded admission.

Note the non words “uhh” and “uhm” and the pauses he used to take time to answer.

When someone is speaking of an event in the past, it is expected the subject to use past tense language. Present tense language is deemed unreliable. Deceptive people often use the present counting on us to interpret and assume that they are speaking of the past event.

Mueller showed us to be able to use the past tense as in the first part of his narrative he spoke at the past tense “we started”, “she took”, “I took” and “I suggested” but then, he suddenly shifted to the present tense making the second part of his narrative unreliable.

In these sentences, “she is… looks at me, I take a picture… uhm… I think (unintelligible), I think… uh… like a bird kind of floaters by, but the dog just jumps out and she is turning and… and its like… its like her feet went out from under…” Mueller sounds vague and unreliable due to the two “I think”, to the “like” and the two “it’s like”.

It’s like… it just happened in slow motion in front of me, she falls forward and… and, I remember, launching forward to try to… to try to get to her but I was probably 5, 6, 7 feets from her, it looked to me like she just did a swam dive and… and lands on the rocks right by the water, just… just like head and shoulders and… and just crumples and just… just slides like mush into the… into the… the little channel and I’m screaming her name, I’m hollering. I should had jump in.

Everything Mueller says at the present tense is unreliable and tells us that he is not recalling from experiential memory.

Again “It’s like”, “to try”, “probably”, “it looked to me like” sound vague and story telling.

“I remember” is unnecessary wording whereas in truthful accounts people can only tell us what they remember. This may be an indication that Fred, previously, told us what was not from his experiential memory.

Note how many times Mueller uses the word “just”. “just” is a dependent word  used in comparison. Its communication is found in dependence upon another thought. We can assume that, while building his unreliable story, Mueller was thinking about what really took place.

She’s moving with the current. I don’t know what I’m doing and the next thing I know, she’s out of sight there and I can’t really see where I can get to her, she’s just face down in the water, head first going downstream.

Mueller is still speaking at the presente tense of a past event, his narrative is unreliable.

“I don’t know what I’m doing” is in the negative and unnecessary to say, he is using this sentence to fill his unreliable narrative. 

“and the next thing I know” is a clear example of temporal lacunae, a sentence often used by deceptive people to jump over time, a signal of withholding information.

“I can’t really see” is not only in the negative but is weak, the options are two: someone can see or can’t see, the word “really” opens to the fact that he could see something.

When Mueller says “she’s just face down in the water” he is comparing his wife being face down in the water with another position.

Fred Mueller: I didn’t do anything and I’m not at all afraid of the truth.

“I didn’t do anything” is an unreliable denial. Mueller is unable or unwilling to say “I didn’t kill Leslie” which was expected. 

A reliable denial is found in the free editing process, not in the parroted language and has 3 components:

1. the pronoun “I”
2. past tense verb “did not” or “didn’t”
3. accusation answered

If a denial has more than 3 or less than 3 components, it is no longer reliable.

“I did not kill Leslie” followed by “I told the truth” while addressing the denial, it is more than 99% likely to be true. A deceptive person will alter his denial to avoid a direct lie.

Saying “I didn’t do anything” Mueller violated component 3 of the reliable denial.

The second sentence “and I’m not at all afraid of the truth” is not only in the negative but he fells the need to add “at all”, we can assume that the truth is sensitive to him.

According with sheriff Bruce, Mueller, during one of the first interview, suddendly started talking about family insurance policies.

Fred Mueller: We had a big insurance policy on the two of us. It was strictly for inheritance, so what in the world would it have been of benefit to me for the reality is there was no reason for my wife to die that benefitted me, no monetary benefit.

An innocent has not reason to speak spontaneously about motives for murder.

“there was no reason for my wife to die that benefitted me, no monetary benefit” is distancing language, Fred Mueller himself introduces the topic but is unable or unwilling to say not only “I didn’t kill my wife Leslie” neither “there was no reason for me to kill my wife, no monetary benefit”.

According with undersheriff Burden, Fred Mueller also said: ” You know, I don’t have any reason to kill my wife. I don’t have any motive. I don’t have a girlfriend. We love each other very much”.

When Mueller, without being asked, says “I don’t have any reason to kill my wife. I don’t have any motive. I don’t have a girlfriend. We love each other very much” he shows a need to pre-empt the question to explain something that an innocent wouldn’t have any need to explain. This is not only an alert for deception, but opens to the possibility that Mueller is telling us the opposite of what it is.

Note that “I don’t have any reason to kill my wife. I don’t have any motive. I don’t have a girlfriend” not only are in the negative but at the present tense: 

  • There is no reason to report things in the negative while speaking freely, that’s why everything is said in the negative is double important to us and deemed sensitive.   
  • Mueller keeps speaking at the present, he is not telling us what he was thinking before the death of his wife but just what he is thinking right now that the allegations are upon him. 

“We love each other very much” is sensitive,  the presence of “very much” shows a need to persuade.

Most of the murderers often sound uninhibited, naive, aggressive or sarcastic, they choose to substitute a reliable denial with rage, sarcasm or whatever, counting on us to interpret and assume that they are denying the allegations. Mueller, incredibly, said to undersheriff Burden “If you didn’t have a badge and gun, I’d fucking beat the shit out of you” and “That’s bullshit. You’re asking me how many times a day did I have sex, but you won’t tell me if you found any damn glasses”.

Fred Mueller: It’s that kind of crap that makes me think you’re not believing a word I’m telling you. I’m just sticking my head in a noose. I didn’t do anything.

Mueller is not only unable or unwilling to deny his involvement in Leslie’s death but he accepts a possible guilt, something that is not expected from an innocent. There is no consequence to issue a reliable denial about any false allegation but Mueller is unable to defend himself. “I didn’t do anything” is an unreliable denial. 

One of Leslie and Frederick Mueller’s daughter reported to Dateline her father’s first call after the death of her mother:

“He said: I’m so sorry, I’m so sorry.

and I said: What happened?

and he said: We were hiking, I tried to take a picture, she felt.

I remember saying: Does she is going be ok?

and he said: No, she is death.

and he said: I’m so… so sorry Mindy”.

Note the initial “I’m so sorry, I’m so sorry” and the final “I’m so… so sorry”.

We note “I’m sorry” because is often an indicator of a form of regret that usually enters the language of the guilty. 

Analysis Conclusion:

Frederick Mueller deceptively witheld information and fabricated reality.

Mueller was not only unable or unwilling to deny his involvement in his wife Leslie’s death but he accepted a possible guilt.

He has guilty knowledge of what happened to his wife Leslie.

Undersheriff Robert Burden

Undersheriff  Robert Burden said to correspondent Peter Van Sant: “I say it was not an accident, I say it was a cold blooded murder”.

I agree. Frederick Mueller got away with murder.

Ursula Franco, MD and criminologist

Analisi di stralci di interviste relative alla scomparsa di Maria Angela Corradin detta Carmen

Mariangela Corradin detta Carmen è scomparsa venerdì 11 agosto 1995 dalla sua abitazione di via Beato Angelico, Torino.

All’epoca dei fatti, suo marito Pasquale Caterisano ha rilasciato un’intervista a Chi l’ha visto?:

Pasquale Caterisano: “Abbiamo pranzato… insieme e poi siamo andati a riposare aaah verso le 4, 4 e un quarto circa, esattamente adesso no… non ricordo, è arrivata una telefonata di un mio zio della Calabria, giù, da zio Alfredo e dove lì eee appunto eee c’è stato un po’ di litigio e lei ha detto, dice: “Basta o la fate finita voi o la faccio finita io”.

Pasquale Caterisano mente quando afferma di aver ricevuto una telefonata dallo zio Alfredo venerdì 11 agosto, lo zio chiamò a casa Corradin nella serata di giovedì 10 agosto 1995 e in precedenza chiamò la Corradin mentre il Caterisano si trovava ancora in Calabria.

Ecco cosa lo zio Alfredo, all’epoca dei fatti, disse agli inquirenti:

Stralcio del verbale dello zio Alfredo

Nel verbale di sommarie informazioni testimoniali dello zio Alfredo si legge: “(…) telefonata mio nipote non era presente, la quale mi riferiva che di tornare insieme al Caterisano Pasquale, in quanto non era la prima volta che la tradiva, io dopo qualche consiglio dato per il bene del loro figlio Andrea ho chiuso e ho riferito la comunicazione a mio nipote. Durante la conversazione avuta con mio nipote ho consigliato allo stesso di andare personalmente a Torino e cercare di chiarire di persona la situazione con la Corradin Maria Angela. Cosa che mio nipote ha fatto, infatti all’indomani della conversazione, ho notato che lo stesso era partito. La sera del giorno della partenza di mio nipote ho telefonato a Torino a casa di Corradin Maria Angela e mi ha risposto il figlio cioè Andrea il quale mi riferiva che i genitori si trovavano in camera da letto, io appreso tale notizia credevo che la situazione si era risolta, ho chiesto ad Andrea di farmi parlare con il padre il quale mi riferiva di essere stanco e mi passava la Corradin la quale, durante la conversazione mi riferiva che la situazione non era per nulla sistemata in quanto lei di Caterisano Pasquale non ne voleva più sapere, dopo questa affermazione ho formulato un invitato alla Corradin, ogni qualvolta avesse bisogno di aiuto di rivolgersi pure a me ed alla mia famiglia in quanto la consideravo meglio di una nipote ed ho chiuso la conversazione. Dopo qualche giorno dall’ultima conversazione avuta, mi (…)”.

Quindi sono due le telefonate che lo zio Alfredo fece a casa Corradin prima della scomparsa della donna:

  1. Alfredo telefonò una prima volta alla Corradin mentre Pasquale Caterisano si trovava ancora in Calabria e, dopo aver parlato con Maria Angela, invitò il nipote Pasquale ad andare a Torino per parlare con la Corradin;
  2. Alfredo chiamò nuovamente a casa della Corradin nella serata del giorno della partenza di Pasquale e Andrea Caterisano, ovvero il 10 agosto 1995, e parlò sia con Andrea che con Pasquale Caterisano, sia con Maria Angela Corradin;
  3. Lo zio Alfredo non ha riferito di aver chiamato la Corradin nel pomeriggio del giorno della sua scomparsa.

Nel verbale datato 25 agosto 1995 e firmato da Pasquale Caterisano si legge che Pasquale ed Andrea Caterisano arrivarono a Torino giovedì 10 agosto 1995, il giorno prima della scomparsa della Corradin: “Il giorno 10 giungevo a Torino a bordo del furgone Fiat Ducato di mia proprietà in compagnia di mio figlio Caterisano Andrea. Mi recavo al mio domicilio in via Bruno Angelico 9, ove risiede la mia convivente Corradin Mariangela. Avevo intenzione di riconciliarmi con lei. Lo scopo era protrarre la convivenza che durava da quindici anni. Ma Corradin Mariangela rispondeva di non voler più convivere con me: “Questa storia deve finire se no la faccio finita io…”. Preciso che a tutti i fatti ha assistito anche mio figlio, in quanto quel giorno non ci siamo mai separati…”.

Da notare che quando Pasquale Caterisano dice “Preciso che a tutti i fatti ha assistito anche mio figlio, quel giorno non ci siamo mai separati” sostiene il vero ma si riferisce a giovedì 10 agosto 1995 e non a venerdì 11 agosto 1995, giorno della scomparsa della Corradin. Il fatto che il Caterisano senta la necessità di precisare che “quel giorno” non si separano mai, ci permette di ipotizzare che lo faccia perché sta paragonando il giorno 10 agosto con un altro giorno in cui lui e suo figlio invece si separarono, altrimenti non avrebbe avuto bisogno di aggiungere “quel giorno” ma avrebbe potuto semplicemente dire “Preciso che a tutti i fatti ha assistito anche mio figlio, in quanto non ci siamo mai separati…”. Evidentemente non è difficile inferire che sta paragonando il giorno 10 agosto al giorno successivo, giorno della scomparsa della Corradin.

Giornalista: Cioé non voleva più che qualcuno insistesse?

Pasquale Caterisano: “Insistesse, cioè al risanamento della nostra storia e bon, allora, nel frattempo è arrivato Andrea, ha detto: Pa’ andiamo all’aeroporto?, E io ho detto: “Aspetta un momento”, e Carmen mi ha risposto e mi ha detto: “Perché- dice- cosa deve andare a fare in aeroporto?”, Ho detto: “No, perché il ragazzo va giù in Calabria, lo mandiamo giù”, e lei mi fa: “Mentre che ci sei, pagagli anche il taxi”, ci ha detto sarcasticamente e io ho detto: “Vabbè, vabbè”, visto che la cosa si stava di nuovo a bisticciare, ho detto: “Vabbè, Andrea andiamo, lascia perdere”, e ci siamo andati via e l’abbiamo lasciata a casa”.

Pasquale Caterisano mente quando dice che Andrea, l’11 agosto, sarebbe “arrivato” mentre lui e la Corradin stavano discutendo dopo aver ricevuto la telefonata dello zio Alfredo, come abbiamo visto, la telefonata era infatti intercorsa tra Andrea, Maria Angela, Pasquale e lo zio la sera de 10 e non il pomeriggio dell’11 agosto 1995. 

Tra l’altro a quella telefonata dello zio fu proprio Andrea a rispondere pertanto non poteva essere “arrivato” in quanto in quell’occasione evidentemente si trovava lì con loro. 

Questa risposta di Pasquale Caterisano è fondamentale per ricostruire gli eventi di quel giorno in quanto è proprio il Caterisano a dirci che, venerdì 11 agosto 1995, dopo pranzo, il giovane Andrea uscì di casa per poi rientrare “nel frattempo è arrivato Andrea, ha detto: Pa’ andiamo all’aeroporto?”, pertanto lui e la Corradin rimasero soli per un certo lasso di tempo.

Pasquale Caterisano: “(…) non so dov’è, niente, noi abbiamo fatto un giro per vedere se la trovavo, non l’abbiamo trovata e così si… niente siamo andati… poi a mangiare una pizza e niente e poi dico: “B…”, abbiamo girato ancora, dico: “Basta, mi son rotto le scatole”, proprio ho detto la frase così a lu… rivolgendomi a lui, dico: “Sai cos… facciamo visto che fa caldo!? Andiamo a dormire su- dico- in una pensione”- dico: “Tu cosa ne pensi?”- ho detto a lui, ah mi fa lui: “Sì, sì”, mi ha detto”.

Il fatto che il Caterisano minimizzi dicendo “Basta, mi son rotto le scatole”, è sospetto.

Il 6 maggio 2007, Andrea Caterisano ha riferito in un’intervista al giornalista di La Repubblica, Niccolò Zancan, che nella villetta di via Beato Angelico c’era il condizionatore d’aria in camera da letto, pertanto il motivo per il quale Pasquale Caterisano passò la notte lontano da casa con suo figlio nulla ha a che fare con il caldo. 

Niccolò Zancan: Ricorda dove avete dormito quella notte?

Andrea Caterisano: In un piccolo albergo di Pino Torinese. Mi è rimasta impressa l’ immagine di una strada in salita e poco altro. Ma proprio questa è una scelta che mi tormenta. Perché mio padre mi ha portato a dormire lì? Non eravamo mai andati in albergo prima. Avremmo potuto tranquillamente dormire a casa. E la scusa del caldo non regge: proprio mio padre aveva installato il condizionatore d’aria in camera da letto.

Niccolò Zancan: Allora perché?

Andrea Caterisano: Non lo so, sinceramente. Per questo chiedo aiuto agli investigatori. Vorrei che mi aiutassero a capire.

Ma torniamo a quel venerdì 11 agosto 1995, il figlio maggiore della Corradin, Paolo Paolucci, si recò a casa di sua madre verso le 19.30, non trovò nessuno e notò che l’auto della Corradin non si trovava parcheggiata nel giardino della villetta ma sulla strada. Sarebbe interessante sapere quali fossero le abitudini di Maria Angela Corradin in merito, difficile pensare che, avendo uno spazio a disposizione per parcheggiare l’auto in giardino, la Corradin la lasciasse in strada ma, in ogni caso, è chiaro che chi uccise Maria Angela quel pomeriggio entrò in giardino con il proprio automezzo e vi caricò il cadavere della donna e che solo chi avesse avuto accesso alle chiavi del cancello o ne possedesse personalmente una copia avrebbe potuto aprirlo per poi eventualmente estrarre l’auto della Corradin, entrare con il proprio automezzo, caricare il cadavere della donna e richiudere il cancello.

Peraltro, chi uccise la Corradin non solo possedeva le chiavi del cancello da cui si accedeva al giardino perché lo aprì e lo richiuse, ma anche quelle di casa, lo si evince dal fatto che chiuse anche la porta di casa Corradin con quattro mandate prima di allontanarsi.

La Corradin non uscì di casa con le sue gambe quel pomeriggio, una vicina la vide raccogliere i panni stesi intorno alle 14.00; al ritorno a casa dei suoi familiari,  il ferro da stiro era acceso e sia la sua borsa che la sua protesi dentaria furono ritrovate in casa; evidentemente la Corradin si era tolta la protesi dopo pranzo, per lavarla, e non se l’era rimessa perché decisa a rimanere in casa. 

Anche l’orologio della Corradin è stato ritrovato in casa, rotto e fermo sulle 15.31, un orario compatibile con una eventuale colluttazione che possa aver preceduto l’omicidio, omicidio che avvenne mentre la Corradin era intenta a stirare. 

Paolo Paolucci ha riferito ad un giornalista di Chi l’ha visto? un dettaglio importante relativo al giorno della scomparsa di sua madre, un dettaglio che ci aiuta a comprendere il perché Pasquale Caterisano condusse suo figlio Andrea lontano da casa quella sera, per un aperitivo, una pizza e soprattutto il perché lo fece dormire in albergo e non a casa:

Paolo Paolucci: “Ad un certo punto mi sento suonare il clacson del furgone del del signor Pasquale, mi affaccio, era in furgone con Andrea che mi viene detto: E’ ritornata mamma? E’ arrivata mamma? Gli faccio: “No perché è con te?, Non è con te?”. Lui fa: “No, non c’è, sono andato in Aeroporto per vedere gli aerei, gli orari degli aerei e tua madre non c’era, continuo a cercarla”, e se ne va”.

La sera della scomparsa di Maria Angela, in un’occasione, Pasquale Caterisano, incontrò a casa della sua compagna, Paolo Paolucci, il figlio maggiore della Corradin, e nonostante la situazione fosse drammatica, mostrò di aver fretta di andarsene, infatti scambiò solo poche parole con Paolo, ma soprattutto il Caterisano non scese dal furgone, non lo abbandonò neanche per un attimo. 

Il comportamento del Caterisano in questa occasione e il fatto che la notte della scomparsa della Corradin si sia allontanato da casa con il proprio furgone per andare a dormire con il figlio Andrea in un albergo, ci permettono di inferire che Pasquale Caterisano temeva che Paolo Paolucci gli chiedessi di poter controllare il retro del furgone Fiat Ducato di sua proprietà, furgone con cui tornò repentinamente in Calabria nel pomeriggio del giorno seguente, sabato 12 agosto 1995, dopo aver denunciato alle forze dell’ordine la scomparsa della sua compagna Mariangela Corradin detta Carmen.

Questo articolo è stato pubblicato su Le Cronache Lucane il 7 giugno 2018.

Michael Iver Peterson: a pathological liar and a murderer

Real-crime-feature

Michael Peterson

Last year I published an article explaining how Michael Iver Peterson killed his wife Kathleen, the big mistake of the consultant of the Durham D. A. was to think that Peterson used a blow poke or something similar to kill his wife Kathleen, Michael Peterson killed his wife and his friend Elizabeth Radlif simply using his bare hands.

On march 2016 I wrote an analysis of Michael Peterson’s 911 call, an incriminating call incredibly used by Peterson lawyer, David Rudolf, as something useful to save his client.

Michael Iver Peterson’s personality is interesting, he is obsessed with himself, he has a grandiose sense of self-importance, his goals are always selfish and self-motivated, he is unable to establish healthy relationships, he believes to be unique and special, he requires extreme admiration and has unreasonable expectations of special treatment, he thinks to be more intelligent than others, he takes advantage of others to further his own needs, he has zero empathy, in other words he is a Narcissist.

He built a very sick Narcissistic Family: his children and wives (he had two) were mentally abused; just Kathleen’s daughter, Caitlin Veronica Atwater, escaped this pathological environment.

Durham District Attorney and prosecutor in this case, Jim Hardin, now Judge of the Supreme Court, said about Peterson: “On every aspect Michael Peterson life is a lie, this case is about pretends and appearances”.

Michael Iver Peterson lied all his life.

He thinks to be a good liar and more intelligent than others, that’s why he agreed to act with his lawyers and consultants in a pathetic and incriminating documentary The Staircase (2004) by Jean-Xavier de Lestrade. The representation of a sad Narcicisstic Family emerges in the chapters 8 of this documentary. Liars usually speak too much and Michael Peterson is one of them.

Here, two statements that Peterson released to the journalists outside the Durham County Courthouse before his trial:

– “Kathleen was my life, I whispered her name in my heart a thousand times, she is there but I can’t stop crying. I would never have done anything to hurt her, I am innocent of these charges, I will prove it in court. People I do know wonder how I can go out (of prison) but I said I didn’t do anything, I am truly innocent of these charges”.

Peterson was speaking freely and he had the occasion to say that he didn’t kill his wife but he was unable to lie.

“I would never have done anything to hurt her” is an unreliable denial.

He said hurt instead of kill to minimize. Minimization is a distancing measure, it’s a way to avoid of dealing with negative emotions by reducing the importance and impact of events that give rise to those emotions, it’s a common strategy used by guilty people to deal with feelings of guilt.

“I am innocent to these charges” is an unreliable denial. Peterson said the truth, he is still “innocent de iure” not being judged yet, but he is not innocent “de facto”. Anyway, to affirm to be innocent is different from saying “I didn’t kill”, which is expected. To say, “I am innocent” is to deny the judicial outcome, not the action. An innocent de facto is someone who did not “do it” and is able to say “I didn’t do it” and eventually to add in the judicial conclusion. When people say they are innocent, they are just denying the conclusion that they are guilty not the action. Peterson, speaking about “charges”, deliberately left out what these charges were to take distance from the murder.

“I didn’t do anything” is not a reliable denial but a vague assertion.

In “I am truly innocent of these charges”, the use of “truly”, a qualifier, tell us that Peterson believes in degrees of innocence; for him, someone can be “truly innocent” or just “innocent”

Guilty people usually don’t lie but make statements which only sound like a denial, this is the case.

Another statement:

– “I didn’t do anything, I am innocent, I was wrongly convicted, I didn’t harm Kathleen and I didn’t believe into the jury clerk produced that I will be convicted, my immediate reaction was, let’s end it and I told them that I didn’t want an appeal, I wanted just end it right now, forget, enough was enough, we all suffered enough and that… that wonderful, awful life from Romeo and Juliet, all are punished, I mean, I don’t know what we were punished for, I don’t know why my children had to suffer with it, why they were being punished but I did feel that: Let this end right now”.

“I did not do anything…” is not a reliable denial because Peterson, to reduce the stress, deliberately left out the accuses. 

Again, when Peterson said: “I am innocent”, he was just denying the conclusion not the action.

When he said: “I didn’t harm Kathleen”, he substituted “kill” to the softer “harm” in an attempt to minimize to reduce the stress.

When Peterson said: “… that wonderful awful life from Romeo and Juliet”, he was telling us that the wonderful awful is just fantasy like the shakespearean drama Romeo and Juliet.

Peterson was able to say: “I was wrongly convicted” because the consultant of the District Attorney failed to reconstruct the homicide. He didn’t kill Kathleen with the blow poke, he killed her with his bare hands, that’s why in the following statement he says: “Truth is lost”. 

– “This case is no more and no longer about Kathleen. The D.A. has to win, that’s it, he doesn’t care how and basically… and by the same token my lawyers, they want to win. Truth is lost, you know all of this now, truth has no meaning or whatsoever, this has became a show and has got all momentum and we are just going along, I don’t think the D.A. cares about truth anymore, all he wants to do is win and I understand, that I mean sure aaa… in the same way with David, he do… he wants to win, well I want to win too, but I’m still very concerned about the reality of what happened that night”.

Peterson said that he “understand” the District Attorney, an innocent is unable to accept to be framed, no way. When he said “Thuth is lost” and “I’m still very concerned about the reality of what happened that night” he told us that he knows exactly what happened that night and that he knows that his lawyer David Rudolf, that support the idea of a fall down the stairs, is wrong too.

Peterson, recounting the facts, is telling us exactly when he killed his wife:

– “Kathleen and I… we were here watching a movie, I have gone to blockbusters and rented a video and we were watching American Sweet Hearts and I think is probably around 11 o’clock that the movie ended and we took our glasses, left… left the dinner plates as [unintelligible] on there, we will clean up the next day, went into the kitchen, we usus… we would talk for hours, Kathleen and I, in the night time, would talk for two three hours about the movie… ee the kids, what we were going to do and we came in here I think there was… I, I, I’m not sure, we probably had another bottle, I know we were drinking two bottle that night aaa was a nice night, I guess was 55, 60 degrees, very nice night… aaa and I gone outside aaand we were talking here forr… an amount [unintelligible] of time and then what we usually do in a nice night we would go down the pool which I always think the nicest place on the property. I don’t know if the chairs were like this or not but I mean probably some like this aaand she was… we were both right here and you know the dog would come over andd we were just talking anddd finishing our drinks, and thennn she said: ‘I gotta go in because I got a conference call in the morning’, anddd she started walking out that way andd I stayed right here… don’t think I anything special to her, sure not thinking this is, you know, the last time I gonna see her, I said: Goodnight, I gonna be able to see you later and stayed here, she walked and the last I saw her was… I was there and she was just walking… walking here, and that’s it. That was the last time I saw Kathleen alive, no, she was alive when I found her… but barely”.

Peterson said: “(…) we were watching American Sweet Hearts and I think is probably around 11 o’clock that the movie ended and we took our glasses left… left the dinner plates…”, something is missing, why Peterson said “(…) we were watching American Sweet Hearts” and not “(…) we watched American Sweet Hearts”? I suppose that something happened while they were watching the movie, what we expect him to say is “(…) we were watching American Sweet Hearts while (…)”. After that the use of “I think” and “probably” shows a lack of conviction, he said “is probably” not “was probably”, he used the presente tense not the past tense because he was not speaking from his memory; then, he said twice: “left… left the dinner plates…”, the use of “left” as a connecting verb is a stop of the brain and tells us that some information are being left out of the statement, in this case he repeated twice, the first time he use “left” as a connecting verb, the second time describing an action.

Right after that he said: “We will clean up the next day, went into the kitchen”, the use of the future “we will clean” isn’t the right tense after “took” and “left”, Peterson was thinking at the present, he was not  recalling from experiential memory; the omission of the pronoun “we” in the second sentence is significant, the pronoun “we” is gone and I guess that at the same time Kathleen was gone too, dead, they were not anymore a “we”. A change in language indicates a change in reality or is an indicator of deception as the subject does not speak from memory and is not able to track down his own words.

When Peterson says “We usus… we would talk for hours (…) we usually do in a nice night we would go down the pool (…) , he is recalling what they usually did in a nice night and not what they did that night. By telling us what usually happened, Peterson is revealing that something most unusual happened. The need to normalize tells us something not normal took place. 

Peterson was trying to built a story but being a very bad liar, he reveals a lack of conviction from saying: “I think there was… I, I, I’m not sure, we probably (…), I guess (…), I don’t know if (…), I mean probably (…)” , furthermore the presence of a stuttering “I” discloses tension and anxiety. 

Peterson tells us exactly when he killed his wife and that after the homicide he went outside alone: ” I guess was 55, 60 degrees, very nice night…aaa and I gone outside”.  He gave us unnecessary information about the temperature of that night to justify his presence outside for a long time in a night of December. He said “and” before “I gone outside”, when a subject start a sentence with an “and” he leaves some information out of the statement.

– “I can vividly remember finding Kathleen, I can remember opening the door, I can remember calling 911, I can remember… I particularly remember Todd just… ho… holding me as tight as possible, I think in order to contain me, I can remember Heather, the doctor, Ben’s girlfriend, taking my pulse and then I can remember and it must have been very early, I was still in the kitchen, the cops were on me instantly, every where I went a policeman was there I, I, I went outside and… with band and a policeman was there and I remember walking down there, a policeman was there, there was always a policeman with me”.

This is a very sick statement, Kathleen died but everything is just about him. There is not prologue, the critical event is “I can vividly remember finding Kathleen”, no desperation, no pain, no regrets, nothing about what Kathleen went through, just “finding”. The aftermath is all about him, he “particularly” remember his son holding him, the doctor taking his pulse, the cops on him. The critical event, the most important occurrence in the narrative is gone. His statement is suspiciously out of balance. In this statement as in the previous the presence of a stuttering “I” discloses tension and anxiety.

 “… when I think of Kathleen my… I remember… unfortunately its her dying in my arms eh… that’s always overwhelming imagine, if I look at something, oh, ya, there is Kathleen, these are funny things or pictures on the refrigerator where she is in the imperial gardens in Tokyo or there… so… so many things that always if I stop and think no one thing comes out never one thing or or i might think it’s a shine moment or I see pictures or something else or another incident that might occur, oh, ya, there is that one so there is no one identifying thing with Kathleen no ehm…”.

“I remember… unfortunately its her dying in my arms”, this is truth, Kathleen died in his arms, killed by his arms, but not after he called 911 at 2.40 a.m. that morning, as he wants us to believe, she died between 11.08 p.m. and 11.53 p.m., the night before. At 11:08 p.m. Helen Prislinger, Kathleen co-worker, spoke to her, at 11:53 p.m. she sent an email to Michael Peterson’s e-mail address that Kathleen was supposed to read but the attachment ‘readiness’ was never opened. Probably Kathleen while was at the computer read Peterson’ e-mails and found evidences of a homosexual relation with a male prostitute, a motive for murder.

Peterson recounting the facts of that night says that Kathleen left him at the pool to go inside, his words are:

– “…and the last I saw her was when I was there and she was just walking here, and that’s it. That was the last time I saw Kathleen alive…. no… she was alive when I found her… but barely”.

Analyzing Peterson’s 911 call I realise that after almost 15 seconds from the start of the phone call, the operator asked Peterson about the number of stairs, he wasn’t able to answer the question because he wasn’t close to the scene. In the first 15 seconds of the phone call Peterson wasn’t approaching his wife, he was close to her just around 25 seconds after the beginning of the call, he went there just to look at the number of the stairs and because asked. We can hear Peterson walking to the scene to look at the stairs. I guess Peterson picked up the cordless phone in the kitchen, just behind the corner, very close to the service stairs where Kathleen’ body was, so why he had to walk for around ten seconds to be close to his wife to be able to look at the stairs? And, how came that he wasn’t close to her to give information about her conditions to the operator? How could she have died in his arms in the early hours of that morning if he was far from her during the 911 call, as he said, after he found her she was alive but just barely? 

Usually, when people call 911 they stay very close to the victims to give the operator information about their real conditions and to be able to help following the suggestions the operator may give them, like how to perform CPR.

Michael Peterson had no intention to help his wife, that’s why he was far from her when he called 911 and went back to the scene just to look at the stairs to give the operator an approximate number.

Michael Peterson was far from Kathleen because she was already dead for hours and he was not interesting in helping her or in giving any real information to the 911 operator about her condition.

When Michael Peterson called 911 he was quite far from the victim, instead, when the paramedics arrived, he showed a different behavior, he was on her body trying to resuscitate her, he was acting, he knew she was already dead for hours. Peterson was not just acting as a grieving husband for the paramedics, he was also trying to justify all the blood on his clothes, touching and hugging the victim, in other words: he was trying to cover evidences.

– “I went out to turn off the pool lights, I came back and there she was. 
When I called 9-1-1, I thought she’d fallen down the stairs.
As far as I know, that’s what happened.
Well, of course, I thought, well, that’s the only thing he’s basing his case, on this blow poke, and then it wasn’t the blow poke, so of course I thought, well for all of these other reasons including the fact that I certainly didn’t kill Kathleen, well, I certainly didn’t kill her with the blow poke, so, I thought of course, this solves the problem for the case. And then I find out it didn’t even make any difference to the jury. Something else must have caused those injuries, but nobody knows what”.

“I went out to turn off the pool lights, I came back and there she was”, this is a different version, Peterson is speaking just about himself outside and for few minutes.

“As far as I know, that’s what happened”, shows a lack of conviction. Peterson is playing with the story of the blow poke, a mistake of the prosecutor, this can help him but doesn’t make him innocent de facto at all. When he says: “I certainly didn’t kill Kathleen, well, I certainly didn’t kill her with the blow poke…”, he is trying to deny the allegations but saying “well, I certainly didn’t kill her with the blow poke…” he tells us that he killed her.

 

Peterson and one of his lawyer are recorded while simulating an out-of-court oral testimony:

Mr peterson you are under oath, correct?

Yes.

You aspect the jury to believe you?

Yes.

Treat you as a honest person?

Yes.

But the truth is: there have been times in your life when you lied because it benefited you!

I would say probably that’s a good characterisation although I might say it’s easier, it was just easier sometimes to let the lie come out.

Peterson is unable to say: “But the truth is: there have been times in my life when I lied because it benefited me!”, instead he is speaking in third person and he is expecting the jury to believe him because he used to cheat on people for his entire life, he built his life on lies. His lawyer affirms that Peterson is a liar and Peterson replied that “it’s easier”

You married Patricia in 1966, is not correct?
Correct.
And during your marriage, you had a number of affairs?
Yes.
They were not all woman, were they?
No.
And you did continue to have affairs even after relationship with Kathleen began?
That’s, I mean the word affairs to me means…
Sex?
How do you describe one incident or affairs…
The word affairs is confusing?
Yes.
Make simply, you had sex with other people after relationship with Kathleen began?
That’s correct.
Men?
That’s correct.
And women?
No.
Just men?
Yes.
So now, this was different from when you were married to Patty?
Yes.
Ok, as you never talked about that with Kathleen?
…..… Well, we did talk about.
Did you, having sex with other men during the marriage?
In a sense, yes, she understood that.
She understood you with men?
Oh yes… I think there was enough awareness on her part of me as a person, who I was which is what made this relationship so good that yes, she understood these aspects about me and was not bother by that because I loved her but yes I did have sex with other people but had absolutely nothing to do with not loving Kathleen or… loving her less.

During this simulation Peterson fell:

Ok, as you never talked about that with Kathleen?
…..… Well, we did talk about.

He waited too long to answer.

Did you, having sex with other men during the marriage?
In a sense, yes, she understood that.

“In a sense, yes, she understood that”, is a weak statement.

Oh yes… I think there was enough awareness on her part of me as a person, who I was which is what made this relationship so good that yes, she understood these aspects about me and was not bother by that because I loved her but yes I did have sex with other people but had absolutely nothing to do with not loving Kathleen or… loving her less.

 His narcissistic ego is huge.

– “No and I told you guys from the beginning my ass life is in your hands and I know that and I’m not gonna smart you, I’m not gonna smart anybody and I want to tell you this”.

Just guilty people put their “ass life” in the hands of their lawyers acting as spectators. With “I’m not gonna smart you” and I’m not gonna smart anybody”, he is telling us that he is trying to smart everybody.

Peterson his speaking about the articles he wrote before the homicide:

“… but everybody knowsss and I should certainly know better, that when you make fun of people, they don’t like it, its just that simple aandd if you make them silly or ridiculous, ohh, they remember that”.

He shows us how manipulative he can be, he wants us to believe that the District Attorney is framing him because in his articles he attacked the establishment.

Unknown

Peterson is speaking with his lawyer David Rudolf (pictured above) about the exhumation of the remains of Elizabeth Ratliff:

David Rudolf: On the exhumation, apparently Holland told Barbara, in a email to her told that they will exhume Liz’s body, right now we are just basing it on what Barbara…

Michael: Right.

David Rudolf: .. told us that Holland told her…

Michael: Right.

David Rudolf:… and I don’t want…

Michael: Right. What I would like you to do then, its time to Hardin [unintelligible] Jim, we don’t personally have any objections, again wha… you know, what the fucking round [unintelligible] dig graves?

David Rudolf: What Holland claims was… they had permission from Liz’s mother and sister.

Michael: Well are le closest relatives [unintelligible] , what about their daughters?

David Rudolf: I don’t know, you know tha… it maybe ugly, it maybe terrible but the bottom line it’s going end help, you know?!

Michael: I understand.

David Rudolf: If everything is as we think, it is, it’s going help us.

Michael: I know but normally, look, I mean, I have seen enough dead bodies, corpses and graves, it doesn’t… you know, I have no moral problem with this, but… you know, again, as I watch, this was a very good friend of mine and I, I… you know, I have been with that family, the Ratliff family, since George died in… Jesus, 19…, the Granadian invasion, 1981 to [unintelligible] and it’s just… I just don’t know and I can imagine what Margaret and Martha will think, oh, by the way, you have the morgue decide to dig up your mother, aaa, just because, oh Christ, so if you can work with Hardin, Holland or Hardin, Holland [unintelligible] look so that I won’t tell the girls but before they do it, I’m certainly would I have to tell the girls and you might say, you might also, Jim want to talk to the girls, you know the sister is one thing but the daughters are another matter and…

David Rudolf: I don’t want to get into that. I don’t want to get into a pissing match with Hardin over who did they get permission from and who should they have got permission from, that I mean actually is a battle that I don’t want to fight. We are not going to win.

Michael: Fine, but I mean, I guess now, we are not strictly talking about a war here, can people just go and dig a grave? Its one thing when I go in on Holland and go swabbing Kahleen’s vagina [unintelligible] , now we are talking [unintelligible] sick they go in after Kathleen autopsy, two days later, she is in there, all rush into her body and [unintelligible] are doing that, that was disgusting and now they are digging a body, I just… I don’t like it, what I mean, I understand it so just working out with Hardin at least I can notice Margaret and Martha that their mum is going to be dig up.

Peterson is trying to convince his lawyer David Rudolf to stop the exhumation in a quite confused way, he has no arguments. Peterson knows that the result of a new autopsy can put him in a corner because he killed Elizabeth and his wife in the same way. 

Michael Iver Peterson with his right hand grabbed his wife Kathleen by the hairs of her frontal area and slammed with force the back of her head against the wooden stairs, again and again, till she died. During the assault, he once grabbed her contemporary by the hairs with his right hand and by the throat with his left hand and his thumb produced the fracture of the superior cornu of the left thyroid cartilage of her throat. According with her post mortem examination Kathleen suffered multiple lacerations of the head consistent with a flat object, that flat object were the stairs against which her head impacted several times, not because a fall down the stairs but because Michael Peterson slammed her head against those stairs.

In 1985, Elizabeth Ratliff was killed in the same way but by a younger and stronger Michael Peterson. She was found dead at the bottom of the stairs of her house in Germany, she suffered a fracture at the base of the skull because Michael Peterson was younger and stronger and the surface she was slammed against was a floor made of terra-cotta tiles, not wood, like in the Kathleen case.

Peterson’s short novel about Elizabeth Ratliff’s exhumation:

Liz’s Last Trip

The last trip Liz made was in a hearse. She had ridden in several others. The first time after she die in 1985 she had been transported from her home where she died to the hospital for her autopsy then there was the hearse ride from the hospital to the airport for her return to the United States. Then there was the hearse trip from Houston to the mortuary in Bay City and what would presumably been hearse journey from the mortuary to her grave. However, eighteen years later, she made another ride, this one a twelve hundred mile longer across middle America in the back of a hearse travelling from the grave to North Carolina for another autopsy.

Michael Peterson has no empathy, Elizabeth Ratliff, a woman he killed in Germany, is just an inspiration to write about, he is able to ironize about a drama.

A conversation after the results of the second autopsy on Elizabeth Ratliff:

Michael: I mean do you have any doubt that this was collusion? It was just choreograph, it was just completely choreograph.

David Rudolf: I have been in front of a lot of Judges, with a lot of Prosecutors, in lots of situation and I get tell you, I had never ever see something like that before, never.

Michael: I… I don’t think David and I don’t think Tom, you know, believe me or anybody from the beginning but when I say this isn’t Chapel Hill, this isn’t Rhode Island, this isn’t Charlen, this is Durham, it’s unique, it’s particular, it’s dirty, it’s corrupt, it’s small. You know, I don’t think anybody knows this town better than I do and I… that’s where I lived here for years and I told you guys from the beginning that is it… I just found it disgusting… soo.

Peterson, despite the evidence, is still trying to convince his lawyers that the District Attorney is building a case against him because his past, he is using strong words against the establishment without any shame.

– “I can have the presumption of innocence, the reasonable doubt they get over came that the… the bar of the reasonable doubt is been raised significantly now in related to the Radliff so instead of being there which played safe or didn’t prove this as a result of things this coincidences its now up to here. This case is no more and no longer about Kathleen…”.

In this statement he says that the similarities in the two autopsies are just coincidences, but in the moment he says “coincidences” he manually writes in the air two quotation marks admitting that the similarities in the two cases are not coincidences.

Peterson at the phone with his lawyer David Rudolf:

“I understand that but I think, I have been honest with you from day one, meet me in the jail”.

In “I think, I have been honest” not only “I think” makes his assertion weak but he shows an unnecessary need to persuade. He didn’t say the truth to his lawyerRudolf, he hasn’t been honest with him either.

At the phone:

– “One: I didn’t do anything, number two: there is no murder weapon, number three: there is no motive, Jesus”.

Why if he didn’t kill his wife, should he worry about a murder weapon or a motive?

He is right when he says: “there is no murder weapon”, he used his bare hands.

Peterson is speaking with his two adoptive daughters Margareth and Martha about Kathleen sister, Candice:

“Two times in my all life I have seen that stupid woman andd she said I have a terrible temper”.

After this statement, Peterson pretends to choke one of his adoptive daughters to make them laughing, very sad! This narcissistic human being was able to fool both of his first victim’s daughter too. His black humour shows his lack of empathy and is a way to take distance from the fact.

Peterson is discussing with his lawyers and consultants if he should take the stand at the trial:

– “That’s what I do for living that… It’s tell stories and and everybody wants to hear story, from the [unintelligible] little baby, this is the story andd it’s better a nice story than a scary story and we do see, we have a told story expect in a sense that here the forensic and has told what and what not, but I don’t know how you get in the story, anybody story, without going into the other side, the band staff that everybody doesn’t particularly want have come out in their life because for every good thing [unintelligible] if there is not at least the bad thing some back there, there is a spine can come back, I don’t know I don’t know…”.

Peterson knows, because he is a liar, that people are believers and he is telling his lawyers that he is used to tell stories, this is the reason he feels comfortable to take the stand.

Todd, Martha and Peterson found a blow poke in the garage, here what Peterson tell his lawyer David Rudolf:

“We were terrified, we were freak th… you know literaly freak… asked what happen so we got… Martha got the video camera, I got the … she got the tape recorder [unintelligible]. I called Tom at this time and, you know, if can’t show up we are going to, you can’t come in this house until my attorney who I thought he would show by motorcicle appear… We went in the [unintelligible] and Todd said: I want to talk you dad and I want to ask you, would you put picture life on that blow poke? And I know exactly what he was doing, what he was saying, so, you know, I said: No, absolutely, I would bet my life on that blow poke unless le cops because are still going through this conspiracy thing, unless the cops come get put them God damned thing”.

A tirade, a pathetic show for his children and for his lawyer David Rudolf. 

“You know, I think one of the most strange comments and actually I have two comments, was when Candice was on the stand and she sa… ‘I don’t know who that Michael Peterson is’, you know, I don’t know who that person is either, who has been on trial hearing all these things, listening all of these stories.. mmm this is incredible thing, I don’t know who that person is either, but it’s me, I know that I know who I am and I can live with that and I told you at the beginning, I have never been terribly concern what other people think and I know that come across an arrogance but I think that a lot has to do with peace that I have never really ever hurt anybody, yes I have been… have done bad things, yes, you know I certainly in a verbally way hurt I haven’t lived the most exemplary life but I never had consciously going out hurt anybody and I can in a very loose definition live in peace with myself and if you can do that it really doesn’t make any different where where there is so I just probably not be any different Thursday, Wednesday if I come back to this house or go somewhere, it’s not going to change who I am and who I know I am. It would be still me and the trappings certainly could be very, very different, the environment certainly could be very different but that just… environment”.

Saying: “I don’t know who that person is either, but it’s me, I know that I know who I am and I can live with that (…) I have never been terribly concern what other people think (…)”, Peterson recognise that during the trial they painted a real portrait of him. 

“I have never really ever hurt anybody (…)” is not a reliable denial, he is unable to say: “I didn’t kill Kathleen”. 

A reliable denial has 3 components:

1. the pronoun “I”
2. past tense verb
3. accusation answered

If a denial has more than 3 or less than 3 components, it is no longer reliable.

“I did not kill her” followed by “I told the truth”, while addressing the denial, it is more than 99% likely to be true. A deceptive person will alter his denial to avoid a direct lie.

In this case, we look for peterson to say “I didn’t kill her” or “I didn’t kill Kathleen” using the pronoun, “I”, the past tense “didn’t” or “did not” and add in the specific accusation.

“I have never really ever hurt anybody” is not a reliable denial either he doesn’t deny the action of killing, he uses “never ever” a way to avoid a specific time frame. He substitutes “kill” to the softer “hurt” violating component three of a reliable denial and he substitutes “I didn’t” to “I have never really ever” violating component two of a reliable denial. “Never” seeks vagueness and is unreliable as this was a single specific event. “Never” is, itself, sensitive, it becomes even weaker as it combines with the need to persuade that we find in his few unnecessary words “really” and “ever”.

“I never had consciously going out hurt anybody” is different from “I never hurt anybody” or from “I never killed anybody” or from “I didn’t kill anybody”, the use of “consciously” and of “going out” make this statement very weak. He shows a deep lack of conviction that opens to the possibility that “unconsciously” he could have hurt someone. Peterson is telling us that nothing can change the way he lives with himself, not an homicide, not a conviction, nothing, showing us what a self-obsessed narcissist is.

Ursula Franco, M.D. and criminologist

read also:

Michael Peterson’s 911 call

The murder of Kathleen Hunt Atwater Peterson at the ‘hands’ of Michael Peterson

Scomparsa di Marina Arduini: analisi dell’intervista rilasciata dall’uomo indagato per il suo omicidio

Marina Arduini

Marina Arduini

L’ex amante di Marina Arduini, un certo Angelo, indagato per l’omicidio e l’occultamento del suo cadavere ha rilasciato un’intervista alla giornalista Chiara Cazzaniga della trasmissione televisiva Chi l’ha visto.

Marina Arduini, ragioniera commercialista, socia della Multiservice, una società di servizi è scomparsa da Frosinone Scalo lunedì 19 febbraio 2007.

Marina Arduini al momento della scomparsa aveva 39 anni e viveva con i genitori.

Dopo la sua scomparsa si è indagato poco e male.

Marina era legata sentimentalmente ad Angelo, un uomo sposato con figli, un piccolo imprenditore di Alatri, titolare di un’impresa di pulizie a Roma, pregiudicato per piccoli reati, è lui l’uomo indagato per l’omicidio di Marina e per l’occultamento del suo cadavere, con lui la Arduini, a detta della di lei sorella, aveva discusso nel pomeriggio di domenica 18 febbraio, il giorno prima di sparire.

Angelo, dopo la scomparsa della donna, ha negato agli inquirenti che tra lui e Marina ci fosse qualcosa di più di un’amicizia.

Cinque giorni dopo la scomparsa della Arduini ha dichiarato:

Conobbi Marina Arduini circa 8 anni fa per ragioni di lavoro, da allora nasceva un’amicizia e spesso ho continuato a chiamarla per qualsiasi problema legato al lavoro nonché per sincera amicizia”.

Pochi giorni prima della scomparsa della Arduini, nella notte tra il 13 ed il 14 febbraio qualcuno è entrato nel suo studio e l’ha messo a soqquadro. Il giorno seguente, su un conto corrente bancario intestato alla società della Arduini, la Multiservice, sono stati addebitati 288 euro, una prima rata di un finanziamento di 13 mila euro per l’acquisto di mattonelle, sanitari ed infissi.

Il signor Gianni Palmigiani, titolare dell’azienda che dalle carte sembra abbia venduto a Marina il materiale per il rifacimento di un bagno, è risultato essere un amico dell’amante della Arduini. In realtà Marina non ha mai firmato quelle carte, la Arduini accortasi della truffa, non solo ha bloccato il pagamento delle rate successive, ma aveva deciso di denunciare coloro che avevano provato a derubarla.

La mattina del 19 febbraio Marina non si è recata al suo studio, alle 9.15  ha inviato un sms ad una collega: “Vengo più tardi, sono in giro per servizi”, il suo telefono a quell’ora ha agganciato una cella di Frosinone; alle 9.44 ha inviato un messaggio alla signora che sarebbe dovuta andare a fare le pulizie al suo studio per dirle di non andare; alle 10.51.27 ha ricevuto una telefonata dalla segretaria della Società di Costruzioni 2F, la telefonata è durata 49 secondi poi il suo cellulare è stato spento; alle 11.26.42 il telefono ha agganciato la cella della Stazione Termini di Roma; alle 11.36.39 è stato di nuovo spento ed infine ha agganciato una cella tra Formia e Gaeta alle 15.00 ed una cella di Salerno alle 17.10.

La macchina della Arduini è stata ritrovata a Roma nel 2009, ad un chilometro dalla via Tuscolana, in un parcheggio non distante dalla sede della Società di Costruzioni 2F, società con la quale aveva a che fare l’amico di Angelo, il signor Gianni Palmigiani.

Analisi di uno stralcio dell’intervista rilasciata dall’unico indagato per l’omicidio di Marina Arduini:

Angelo: “Le mie, come vengono chiamate, bugie…”.

Angelo, usando il pronome possessivo “mie”, prende possesso delle bugie.

Giornalista: “Sono bugie”.

Angelo: “Si, le mie bugie sono state dettate comunque dalla paura per la relazione ex(tra) coniugale, poi la famiglia, i figli eee un insieme di cose chee… che te travolge, come è successo poi alla fine”.

Torna a prendere possesso delle bugie, dice di averle dette per “paura”, “poi la famiglia, i figli” ma non dice “per la famiglia, per i figli”.

Angelo: “Questo è stato… diciamo uno dei più grandi errori che ho potuto commettere perché questo èè stato dettato forse daalla… dalla mia paura essendo una persona sposata, avendo dei figli eeeeh lì per lì noonn, ho avuto paura, tutto qua, non… non è stato… anche se non negando… i rapporti con Marina ho tralasciato inizialmente questo fatto-re del… che ci sia stata ‘na storia tra me e lei… anche perché, anche perché non… pensavo che la cosa si risolvesse connn il suo ritorno oooo che la cosa si… come posso dire, si evolgesse in modooo positivo”.

Secondo l’uomo il fatto di aver negato che vi fosse qualcosa di più di un rapporto di amicizia tra lui e Marina ha insospettito tutti e per questo lo definisce: “uno dei più grandi errori che ho potuto commettere”; nel tentativo di giustificarsi dice: “questo èè stato dettato forse daalla… dalla mia paura essendo una persona sposata, avendo dei figli”, usa un “forse” riferito alla sua condizione di uomo sposato che indebolisce fortemente la sua affermazione e che ci dice che il fatto che fosse sposato non è il motivo per il quale non ha detto di essere l’amante della Arduini. Il sostenere che la paura che la moglie venisse a sapere della sua relazione extra coniugale con la Arduini lo avesse indotto a non collaborare, non solo non è credibile ma assume le vesti di un clamoroso autogol fornendo a chi indaga un potenziale movente. Nel finale della risposta afferma di essere stato a conoscenza da subito del fatto che Marina fosse  morta, egli infatti afferma: “… perché non… pensavo che la cosa si risolvesse connn il suo ritorno…”. 

Giornalista: “E per questa cosa invece del finanziamento dei 13.000 euro, noo?”.

Angelo: “Mmm, no… no, no, non sono queste le paure… la paura che ho avuto èèè…”.

Una risposta frammentata che ci dice che Angelo si trattiene perché teme di dire cose incriminanti.

Giornalista: “Quindi lei c’entra nel finanziamento?”.

Angelo: “Mmmm… le ho già detto che questa cosa la vedremo dopo, no? Le ho già detto che queste sono cose che stanno in mano agli… agli inquirenti… alla cosa, quando sarà il momento verrà affrontato anche questo”.

Una risposta evasiva.

La giornalista lo interroga sulla presenza di una firma simile alla sua apposta sulla bolla al ritiro della merce:

Giornalista: “E’ sua la firma?”.

Angelo: “(sospiro) Guardi su questo qua non possiamo rispondere, perché eee il mio avvocato Vellucci ahhh… datosi che ci sono degli accertamenti in corso… delle cose, dobbiamo tralasciare”.

Ancora una risposta evasiva. Evadere le risposte è uno degli indicatori statisticamente più significativi di colpevolezza. Non solo l’uomo evade la risposta ma parla al plurale “qua non possiamo rispondere”, l’uso del plurale è un modo per spostare il focus da sé e un tentativo di condividere.  

Interrogato sulla sua frequentazione del ristorante di un agriturismo in compagnia della sua amante Marina, del proprietario della rivendita di sanitari, signor Palmigiani e della di lui segretaria Maria Grazia, i quali tra l’altro hanno sempre negato di conoscere la Arduini mentre la propietaria del ristorante ha riferito agli inquirenti che i quattro erano suoi clienti, l’uomo ha affermato:

Angelo: “Io non sono mai andato a pranzo… a cena all’agriturismo con Marina né tantomeno in presenza di altre persone tra cui queste qua, nonn, non, non è stato maii non… assolutamente mai”.

L’uomo con la frase: “né tantomeno in presenza di altre persone tra cui queste qua”, ci conferma che proprio con queste persone andava a mangiare all’agriturismo. 

Nel giugno 2007 interrogato dagli inquirenti riguardo ai suoi movimenti del 19 febbraio Angelo aveva dichiarato: “Sono andato in carrozzeria intorno alle 9.30 e ci sono rimasto fino alle 10, di seguito mi sono recato dal gommista, subito dopo tornavo dal carrozziere avendo verificato che gli alza-cristalli elettrici non funzionavano, verso le 12.30 mi sono recato presso la mia abitazione”.

All’epoca il carrozziere lo aveva però smentito dicendo che era andato nella sua officina non al mattino ma verso le 12.00.

Giornalista: “Lei non si spiega perché lei abbia detto un orario ed il carrozziere ne abbia detto un altro?”.

Angelo: “Io non lo so, poiiì quello che dicono le persone mm… io. mmm… non… m… non sto nella loro mente, anche perché le persone capisco pure che possono sbagliare oppure non lo so, non glielo so dire questo”.

Angelo ha difficoltà ad affermare che il carrozziere menta, tanto che dice che “le persone… possono sbagliare oppure…”, sono due le alternative: o le persone si sbagliano oppure no, evidentemente egli lascia spazio alla possibilità che il carrozziere dica il vero. Tra l’altro Angelo non è in grado di affrontare l’affermazione del carrozziere vis à vis, non parla di lui ma genericamente di persone, mostrandosi così poco convinto di ciò che afferma e per questo per niente convincente.

Giornalista: “Perché un amico dovrebbe dire una cosa falsa?”.

Angelo: “Non credo che… se ha detto una cosa di questa l’abbia detto perr… m… forse si sarà confuso con qualt’altra persona forseeee… non glielo so dire questo”.

Non crede che l’amico l’abbia detto per incastrarlo, non crede neanche a ciò che riferisce lui ovvero che l’abbia confuso per un altro in quanto aggiunge “forse” alla fine della frase.

Giornalista: “Ma sono stati molto precisi”.

Angelo: “Non glielo so dire il perché… sinceramente non glielo so dire il perché”.

Giornalista: “Sembra che gli altri abbiano dei ricordi mendaci per così dire?”.

Angelo: “Seee le persone dicono una cosa eh io dicoo quello che è, io sto dicendo quello che èio sono dispiaciuto, penso cheeee mmm….. la famiglia abbia (si schiarisce la gola)… Questa è la prima volta che posso… la famiglia aah, sotto questi aspetti, sono sicuro che ce l’abbia aah… con me, anche io forse… trovandomi nella loro situazione, io a me dispiace per loro, per Marina… la cosa è bruttissima per loro, per Marina che non si sa che fine abbia fatto, però io… sono qua anche per eee ripetere per l’ennesima volta che sono innocente che mai avrei potuto fare del male né a Marina né a altre persone”.

Non è dispiaciuto per Marina ed i suoi cari ma per il fatto che ce l’abbiano con lui, neanche il proprietario di un gatto scomparso direbbe mai: “… non si sa che fine abbia fatto”, lasciando intendere che sia stata scritta la parola fine e che il gatto sia morto; l’uomo è freddo, dispatico, non si sforza neanche di mostrarsi addolorato. L’uomo si dice innocente ma non nega in modo credibile di aver ucciso Marina. Dirsi innocenti non equivale a negare l’azione omicidiaria. Un soggetto può essere “innocente de iure” ma non “de facto”, quando è “innocente de iure” e “de facto” o solo “de facto” è capace di negare in modo credibile è capace di negare in modo credibile, non quando lo è solo “de iure”.

Deception Indicated.

Michael Peterson’s 911 call

peterson-960x540

Michael Iver Peterson at his trial

On December 9, 2001, Peterson made his first call to 911 at 2:40 am:

911: Durham 9-1-1. Where is your emergency?

Peterson:… Uuuuh, eighteen ten Cedar Street. Please!

“Uuuuh” is a non word, an unexpected pause to think that shows that Peterson is on guard. Why should he need to think about his own address?

Note the word “Please!”, Peterson shows an unexpected need to ingratiate himself with the operator. 

911: What’s wrong?

Peterson: My wife had an accident, she is still breathing!

Michael Peterson is already setting up a scenario (an accident) with the 911 operator and without being asked he says “she is still breathing!”, he doesn’t says that his wife is breathing but “still breathing!”, “still” is unexpected and means that he is expecting her to stop breathing. 

911: What kind of accident?

Peterson: She fell down the stairs, she is still breathing! Please come!

He repeats “she is still breathing!”, something  important to him, we’ll see why.

“Please” is repeated here. Peterson shows again a need to ingratiate himself with the operator, something unexpected in an emergency call.

911: Is she conscious?

Peterson: Whaat?

Peterson wasn’t expecting the question, that’s why he is unable to give an answer. To answer with a question is a way not to answer or to buy time to give a reliable answer.

911: Is she conscious?

Peterson: No, she is not conscious… please!

Note “please” is repeated here.

911: How many stairs did she fall down?

Peterson: What?… hat?

Peterson answers with a question to stall for time because he is not close to his wife, he is unable to see the stairs. 

911: How many stairs did..

Peterson: … Stairs?!

Peterson is trying to buy time because he is far from the scene.

911: How many stairs?

Peterson:… Uuh… uuh…uh…

After this question, Michael Peterson appears to be caught off guard and is stalling for time with some: “What? Stairs? Uuh, uuh, uh”, a way to buy time to be able to get to the area of the stairs.

We can hear Peterson walking to the scene to look at the stairs.

911: Calm down, sir, calm down.

Peterson: No, damned, sixteen, twenty. I don’t know. Please! Get somebody here, right away. Please!

Note “Please!” is repeated here.

After around 15 seconds from the start of the phone call, the operator asked Peterson about the number of stairs, he was unable to answer the question because he wasn’t close to the scene. In the first 15 seconds of the phone call Peterson wasn’t approaching his wife, he was close to her just around 25 seconds after he Dailed 911, he went there just to look at the number of the stairs and because asked.

I guess Peterson found the cordless phone in the kitchen, just behind the corner, very close to the service stairs where Kathleen’ body was, so:

1- why he had to walk for around ten seconds to be on the scene to be able to look at the stairs?

2- And, how he could give information about his wife condition if he wasn’t close to her?

911: Okay somebody’s dispatching the ambulance while I’m asking you questions.

Peterson: It’s, ohuuh… It’s Forest Hills! Okay? Please! Please!

Note “Please!” is repeated here.

911: Okay, sir? Somebody else is dispatching the ambulance. Is she awake now?

Peterson:… Uummh… uuh…

911: Hello?… Hello?

Peterson:… Uh… uh… mmmm… uuuh… oh… uuuh…

After some questions, Peterson, fearing not to be able to track down his story, doesn’t answer anymore.

Usually, when people call 911 they stay very close to the victims to give the operator information about their real condition and to be able to help following the suggestions the operator may give them, like how to perform CPR.

Michael Peterson had no intention to help his wife, that’s why he was far from her when he called 911 and went back to the scene just to look at the stairs to give the operator an approximate number.

Michael Peterson was far from Kathleen because she was already dead for hours and he was not interested in helping her or in giving any real information to the 911 operator about her condition.

When Michael Peterson called 911 he was quite far from the victim, instead, when the paramedics arrived, he showed a different behavior, he was on her body trying to resuscitate her, he was acting, he knew she was already dead for hours. Peterson was not just acting as a grieving husband for the paramedics but he was also trying to justify all the blood on his clothes, touching and hugging the victim, in other words: he was trying to cover evidences.

The scene

the murder scene

Michael Peterson’s second call to 911 at 2:46 am:

911: Durham 9-1-1: Where is your emergency?

Peterson: Where are they?! It’s eighteen ten Cedar. She’s not breathing! Please! Please, would you hurry up!

Note “Please! Please” is repeated here. Peterson needs to ingratiate and align himself with the good guys with authorities.

For two times in the first phone call, Peterson told the operator that his wife was “still breathing” now he informs the operator that “She’s not breathing!”, this was a way to postpone the time of Kathleen death, she was already death when he made the first call to 911, she was not breathing at that time, he told the operator a lie.

911: Sir?

Peterson: Can you hear me?

911: Sir?

Peterson: Yes!

911: Sir, calm down. They’re on their way. Can you tell me for sure she’s not breathing? Sir…? Hello…? Hello…?

Peterson called 911 a second time just to inform the operator that Kathleen wasn’t anymore breathing but after he gave this information to the dispatcher he didn’t answer any more questions showing a resistance in answering due to his incapacity to track down his story.

In this second call Peterson tried to act as a worried husband but at the same time he reported that Kathleen was not breathing, a way not to motivate the paramedics to hurry up.

During these two short calls Peterson said: “please”, nine times, he used the word “please” as a useful word to act as a worried husband but he showed at the same time a resistance in answering.

Peterson never used his wife’s name, a incomplete social introduction is a signal of a poor relationship.

Peterson never spoke about the blood at the scene while he was in front of a very bloody scene. 

At the second question of the 911 operator Peterson answered with an unexpected “she is still breathing!” those are ‘extra words’, he tried to drive home the point, he wanted the operator to believe that Kathleen was still alive to delay the time of her death. 

Kathleen didn’t die after 2.40 p.m. but between 11.08 p.m. and 11.53 p.m. At 11:08 p.m. Helen Prislinger, Kathleen co-worker, spoke to her, at 11:53 p.m. she sent an email to Michael Peterson’s e-mail address that Kathleen was supposed to read but the attachment ‘readiness’ was never opened. Kathleen, while she was at the computer, read Peterson’s e-mails and found evidences of a homosexual relation with a male prostitute, a motive for murder.

In the first chapter of the documentary ‘The Staircase’ Peterson said that Kathleen left him at the pool to go inside, his words are: “…and the last I saw her was when I was there and she was just walking here, and that’s it. That was the last time I saw Kathleen alive…. no… she was alive when I found her… but barely”, how could she have died in his arms in the early hours of that morning if he was far from her during the 911 call, as he said, after he found her she was alive but just barely? She died in his arms, this is true, but hours before the 911 calls.

Ursula Franco, M.D. and criminologist

P.S. to know more about the case, read my articles:

The murder of Kathleen Hunt Atwater Peterson at the ‘hands’ of Michael Peterson

Michael Iver Peterson: a liar and a murderer