Talk:Michael Peterson (author)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ] | ||
Please contribute new comments at the end of a section, or the page. Please sign all comments with ~~~~ (IP Users can do this too), as this greatly helps communications.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kathleen_Hunt_Atwater_Peterson it is biased.. quote "[...] Kathleen Hunt Atwater Peterson was murdered during a homicidal attack from her husband. Michael Peterson was convicted and sentenced to life in prison for the notorious crime." could someone with better English skills then me edit this, thx :)
I am watching the film right now. What a circus! How weird was that family??? The bisexual father. The arsenist and pornographer sons. The two retarded adopted chicks. The prosecutors were hicks. The slick lawyer thought he was Andy Garcia.
For the record, here are a few articles which suggest Lestrade's bias:
by David Fellerath Independent Weekly March 30, 2005
http://indyweek.com/durham/current/news.html
In fact, the film indulges in numerous malicious cutaways to Black making a variety of hideous scowls, a tactic that Poncet doesn't deny.
. . .
The film has already stirred the polite ire of Craig Jarvis of the News and Observer. In the N&O's edition of Sunday, March 27, the reporter accused the film of misrepresenting the true tenor of the trial. "The investigation and trial that unfold in the documentary," he writes, "is not the one I covered for nearly two years as a news reporter."
by Brendan Berube The New Hampshire (University of New Hampshire) Published: Friday, April 8, 2005
http://www.tnhonline.com/news/2005/04/08/ArtsLiving/ Theres.More.To.the.Staircase.Than.Meets.The.Eye-917577.shtml
In its obsession with the antics and activities of high-priced lawyers, self-important experts and put-upon defendants, "The Staircase" seems to shamefully ignore the one person around whom the story should revolve: the victim.
article by Lee Siegel The New republic 5-23-05
http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=w050523&s=siegel052305
After all the questions "The Staircase" raises about the American court system--Quis custodiet custodes ipsos?--it raises questions about its own methods and authority. Who will film the filmmakers themselves?
. . .
For one thing, you are never told what exactly was the biological cause of Kathleen's death, an incredible omission in a documentary about a possible murder.
by Heather Havrilesky SALON April 3, 2005
http://www.salon.com/ent/feature/2005/04/03/staircase/index.html
Yet the filmmakers clearly aim to question not just Peterson's possible guilt, but the justice system itself. The crew skips some of the most damning details of the trial -- the fact that the couple were in serious financial straits, for example -- in order to focus on the circus atmosphere of the trial and hint at the backwater nature of the prosecution team.
Contents |
[edit] ==================
This article has some POV and neutrality problems. A few examples:
- so the 48-year-old victim, who sustained 7 lacerating blunt force strikes to the top and back of her head in the safety, security and comfort of her home, was not particularly intoxicated.
-
- Comparing the victim's blood-alcohol content and that of a DUI suspect is fine, but the "safety, security and comfort of her home" business is not neutral and suggests bias.
- And as is the case with documentaries, this one took the point-of-view of the defense
-
- This is a biased presumption that documentaries are pro-defense, anti-prosecution. This is someone's opinion and not objective. Jean-Xavier de Lestrade stated in interviews he believed Peterson was innocent, otherwise he would not have made the film; however, he did not know how the trial would turn out. I've not read any reviews of Staircase which suggest it was biased. (Apparently, some on the prosecution team believe it was; however, they are not objective parties.)
The article also wobbles between past and present tenses. This needs to be remedied. As well, there's some cumbersome syntax, e.g. a .08 is the BAC level that determines DUIs.
I'm putting this on my list of editing projects but if any of the original authors read this, you might want to examine your work again in light of the observations above. David Hoag 05:41, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
I quite agree. The article now has a number of objectivity problems, in addition to being rather poorly written. (what are the units of the BAC, what is the relevance of his son's misdemeanour? It is not possible to claim from an autopsy 18 years later, that there were 7 lacerations causing death...)
- Oddly, the filmmakers started their project within weeks of the December 2001 murder, long before the case went to trial in July 2003.
-
- Evidence? The filmmaker's website states 18 months of filming, including the trial itself, and in any case, what is so odd about this?
172.128.237.27 has also altered the web link to the directors site, I am tempted to say 'vandalised' to read "duh Lestrade" rather than "de Lestrade".
The link to the 'counterpoint site to the duh Lestrade film'(sic) is of dubious merit in an encyclopaedia given its vitriolic tone.
In all, I was tempted to revert it to the previous version, given the NPOV presentation, the irrelevant material and the suggestion that it has been written by someone with a strong anti-Peterson POV.
bignoter 21:03, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
Sorry, David Hoag...I thought, like the documentary that seems to have inspired this entry, one could post a factual addendum with some point-of-view. I've edited out the parts you see as most objectionable. However, I must take issue with Bignoter's comments. I've streamlined the BAC bit, but don't understand to what exactly Bignoter refers when he writes "what are the units of the BAC"...BAC itself is a standard measure, and in North Carolina the level of alcohol in the blood at which point a driver is considered DUI is .08. The relevance of his son's felony (not "misdemeanour"--sic) is that the article is about Michael Peterson (Author), at least that's how it was started by whomsoever started it. In a biographical entry, information about next-of-kin is certainly relevant. His older son's earlier troubles are spoken of in the documentary that a previous correspondent saw fit to include in the entry. Bignoter demands evidence, then inserts an out-and-out falsehood when he says, "it is not possilbe to claim from an autopsy 18 years later, that there were 7 lacerations causing death..." Not only does Bignoter misquote from the article, but certainly an experienced forensic pathologist can indeed identify 7 lacerations and conclude that the victim was killed due to a beating with a blunt object. That's what three Medical Examiners/Forensic Pathologists concluded and testified to in court. Evidence? Here's the autopsy report, as posted on the WRAL.com site: Autopsy Report Reveals Elizabeth Ratliff Was Homicide Victim [www.wral.com/news/2163318/detail.html]. WRAL provided complete live coverage on its digital news channel and online. I suggest Bignoter view the public documents posted to its Web site, should he or anyone be interested...http://www.wral.com/news/1452095/detail.html.
[edit] Anonymous Editing/Article Still Needs Much Work
Just a note that editorial work is being done on this article by an unsigned contributor or contributors. While that is not a violation of Wiki policy per se, articles should be sourceable per Wikipedia:Cite sources rules. Rapid changes by a wide variety of unsigned contributors --e.g. 172.129.199.77; 172.129.130.170; 202.126.102.70; and 202.134.240.139 -- does throw a cloud on contributors' objectivity. Additionally, this somewhat smacks of Internet sock puppet behavior; otherwise, how did one of these users know to remove a NPOV tag, something a novice Wiki user would not know? I would encourage contributors to sign in before making contributions or create an account if you don't already have one. This makes the veracity of a discussion more legitimate.
With that said, this article still needs work and contains inaccuracies (for example, Peterson was a columnist and author of nonfiction works, too, so calling him "a novelist" is not accurate). It has no "encyclopedic" lede and meanders in a haphazard fashion completely out of chronology. It's still wavering in tense. Peterson is not dead, so why is he being discussed in the past tense, for example?
Compare, for instance, the Scott Peterson article, which has a tighter overall focus and a good chronological structure. David Hoag 06:12, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
- I've added the {{cleaup}} tag to this article for the reasons stated above. Use of headings and improving the text dramatically is badly needed. AnAn 11:08, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
-
- I'm in the middle of a copyedit now. The more I think about it, the more I believe that the trial and the documentary could have their own page: The Staircase (documentary). I've gotten rid of all the superfluous stuff about Peterson being bisexual and having a credit card debt. I've introduced headings. I've tried to make this article more fact-oriented and less journalistic. I've tried to get rid of weasel-words "MP maintains X, although Y is actually true", "autopsy report revealed" etc. Its important to remember that the court doesn't actually determine the facts, it determines what facts were most likely given the evidence presented. No-one will ever know what happened to Kathleen and Elizabeth (except perhaps Michael Peterson), so we can only state what we know to be true - not what we find damning, or sensational, or heart-wrenching. Just the facts please. AnAn 01:40, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] {{documentary-stub}}
I'm in the middle of making Soupçons as that's the original title of the film, I'll make red-directs from Death on the Staircase (the UK title) and add a disambig link to The Staircase (international title) as well. Most of the material on this page can go there.
brenneman(t)(c) 23:29, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
- Excellent! AnAn 00:46, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
- Ok, the link is now blue. I moved what was at "the Staircase" to The Staircase (book) and put the disambig at the top of Soupçons as the film appears to be much better known than the book. I've also created (as redirects) The Staircase (film) and The Staircase (documentary) to stop any accidental duplication. There appears to be a tonne of material here, and a good deal of it neither sits well in the Michael Peterson article) nor in the Soupçons article. If someone was very keen, they could create The State of North Carolina vs. Michael Peterson or whatever the naming convention for trials is. - brenneman(t)(c) 01:15, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
REALITY CHECK
AnAn states: "Its important to remember that the court doesn't actually determine the facts, it determines what facts were most likely given the evidence presented. No-one will ever know what happened to Kathleen and Elizabeth (except perhaps Michael Peterson), so we can only state what we know to be true - not what we find damning, or sensational, or heart-wrenching. Just the facts please."
When I hear someone coo "just facts please!" it's always a tip-off that they object to the overall truth of the matter. Facts -- taken out of context -- become meaningless trivia.
Now -- while ANYTHING MIGHT BE POSSIBLE in this ever-expanding universe -- there ARE facts that a court of law can determine to be true within a REASONABLE degree of certainty. The court does indeed determine facts through a jury of 12 ordinary citizens charged with doing just that.
In the Peterson case, it was determined -- by evidence that withstood rigorous examination -- that Michael Peterson murdered his wife. It IS damning. It IS sensational. It IS heart-wrenching. It IS true.
To wiggle around the truth by removing facts from their context and playing "neutrality" word games is to lie. This isn't neutral -- this is murder, and the attempt to cover-up a murder.
The FACT is, we have determined EXACTLY what happened to Kathleen Peterson and Elizabeth Ratliff. It has been determined beyond any REASONABLE doubt.
White-washing a topic by using the excuse of needing to be "fair" and "balanced" is actually an attempt to re-write history. Peterson's murder left over 10,000 blood droplets spattered across his hallway walls and cielings. That cannot be neutralized or cleaned away.
But give it your best shot. Regardless of how you phrase it -- the truth is that Michael Peterson is a convicted killer serving out a life sentence in prison.
[edit] Facts?
The FACT is, we have determined EXACTLY what happened to Kathleen Peterson and Elizabeth Ratliff. It has been determined beyond any REASONABLE doubt.
Indeed, it has! Especially in the case of Ratliff, where the unchallenged FACTS for more than a decade indicated she died of brain hemmorage.[1] Thank God she was exhumed, so a medical examiner could change that FACT to a more FACTY FACT...
That's the whole point of this case, you see. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not everyone is entitled to their own FACTS. And if you think FACTS should be changed to suit current circumstances... well, I think they have some openings in the Bush Administration you may wish to consider. (Ooh, cheap shot... but, sadly, supported by evidence. Climate reports? [2]? WMD's?[3])
I think we've just identified Truthiness's lesser-know cousin. Facty-ness, anyone?
Jenolen 10:05, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
