The Staircase: How Michael Peterson’s Bisexuality Became Central to the Murder Trial

The story of Michael and Kathleen Peterson is one of America’s most debated true crime mysteries. On December 9, 2001, Kathleen Peterson was found dead at the bottom of a staircase in the couple’s Durham, North Carolina, home. Her husband, novelist Michael Peterson, said it was a tragic accident. The state said it was murder. The resulting trial did not just focus on forensic evidence. It put Michael Peterson’s bisexuality on display for the jury, a factor he and his legal team believe played a decisive role in his eventual conviction.

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Patrick Schwarzenegger (@patrickschwarzenegger)

The Core Conflict Over Motive

The prosecution’s case against Michael Peterson relied heavily on proving he had a reason to kill his wife. With no clear evidence of a break-in and Peterson as the only person home, prosecutors needed a motive. They argued that Kathleen had discovered Peterson’s secret sexual life with men and that the ensuing confrontation led to her death.

Assistant District Attorney Freda Black was central to this argument. In her closing statement, she directly challenged the idea that Kathleen could have known or accepted her husband’s bisexuality.

“Do you REALLY believe that Kathleen Peterson knew her husband was bisexual? Does that make common sense to you? That it was ok with her?… That’s not the way that soul mates conduct themselves.”

This line of reasoning framed bisexuality as inherently incompatible with a happy, trusting marriage. The prosecution introduced emails and evidence of Peterson’s interactions with male escorts, which Black described to the jury as “filth, pure T filth”. Their argument suggested that the revelation of this “double life” would have so enraged Kathleen that it sparked a fatal argument.

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by S O P H I E T U R N E R (@sophiet)

The Defense’s Counterargument: A Known and Accepted Truth

Michael Peterson and his defense team, led by attorney David Rudolf, presented a very different picture. They argued that his sexuality was not a secret from Kathleen and was therefore not a motive for murder. Peterson stated that while they may not have discussed it in explicit detail, there was a silent understanding between them.

Peterson suggested that Kathleen might have felt more threatened by affairs with women and that his bisexuality was simply a part of who he was—a part she accepted. The defense maintained their marriage was strong and loving, a point supported by their children and friends during the trial. Rudolf fought to keep evidence of Peterson’s bisexuality out of the trial altogether, calling it irrelevant and unfairly prejudicial.

A Shifting Family and a Divided Jury

The focus on Peterson’s sexuality had immediate and painful consequences within the family. Two of Kathleen’s family members who initially supported Michael changed their stance after learning about his bisexuality.

• Caitlin Atwater, Kathleen’s daughter, said, “his bisexuality canceled out all the trust I had in him”.
• Candace Zamperini, Kathleen’s sister, also turned against him after learning this information.

This internal family rift mirrored the challenge the defense faced with the jury. In a 2003 trial in socially conservative Durham, North Carolina, the strategy of painting Peterson as living a deceptive, “deviant” life proved powerful. Peterson himself has since reflected on the impact, stating, “Of course that had to have an impact. Why does that translate into murder? It made no sense at all, but it certainly went, ‘There it is!’ in the juror’s head”.

A Judge’s Regret and a Changed Legal Landscape

In the years following the trial, even the presiding judge expressed doubt about how the issue of sexuality was handled. Judge Orlando Hudson, who oversaw the 2003 trial, later stated he would not allow the same evidence to be admitted if tried today.

“Over the years, you can see how with time and more examination of the evidence that did come in, maybe [the trial] wasn’t without prejudice… All of the homosexual evidence, however it was used, would have been unduly prejudicial to the defence.”

This admission underscores a key question the story raises: Was Michael Peterson on trial for murder, or was he being judged for his sexuality? David Rudolf, Peterson’s defense attorney, believes the prosecution’s approach was a form of “gay bashing” that would not be effective in a modern courtroom.

The Enduring Mystery and Alternative Theories

The debate over Michael Peterson’s bisexuality often overshadows other theories about Kathleen’s death. The famous “owl theory” suggests Kathleen was attacked by a barred owl outside her home, causing her head injuries before she ran inside and collapsed. Proponents point to microscopic feathers found on her body and the unique shape of her lacerations.

Furthermore, the credibility of the state’s forensic case collapsed years after the trial. In 2011, the key blood spatter analyst for the prosecution, Duane Deaver, was fired from the State Bureau of Investigation. The judge later ruled Deaver had given misleading testimony, which led to Peterson being granted a new trial.

Facing the prospect of a second trial, Peterson entered an Alford plea to the lesser charge of voluntary manslaughter in 2017. This plea allowed him to maintain his innocence while acknowledging the state had enough evidence to convict him. He was sentenced to time already served and released.

The tragic death of Kathleen Peterson remains officially unsolved. While the legal case is closed, the public fascination continues, fueled by documentaries and dramatic series. The focus on Michael Peterson’s bisexuality during the trial remains a contentious example of how personal prejudice can become entangled with the pursuit of justice.

Also Read: Last Summer Season 1 Ending Explained: Recap and Future for Do-ha and Ha-gyeong

---