For a while, Michael Peterson — the Triangle columnist/novelist who killed his wife and is now serving a life sentence in prison — provided me with a surefire conversation starter whenever I was introduced to someone: “I’m the Triangle columnist/novelist who didn’t kill his wife,” I’d say. As far as I know, Peterson and I were the only two people in the area who fit that description. It gave us a certain kinship.

That bizarre bond doesn’t extend far, though. And it certainly doesn’t extend far enough for me to climb aboard the theory that Kathleen Peterson’s death was actually the result of an owl attack, as Peterson’s former Durham neighbor claims.

The neighbor, whose name is Larry Pollard, has spent years collecting information to support his thesis. He told the News & Observer recently that prosecutors now have a duty to re-examine the Peterson case:

“If this is potentially exonerating evidence, then the state has a responsibility to look at it,” Pollard said. “If they don’t look at it and just blow it off, they’re doing just what they did with the Duke lacrosse case. All of this may be coincidence. I don’t know. But the state has a responsibility, a duty to look at it.”

Uh, Larry? There’s a big difference between evidence and a theory. You don’t have evidence. You only have what might be politely called an “interesting idea” about the case. I’m sure you get a lot of mileage out of it at cocktail parties and such. But until an owl comes forth and confesses to having attacked Kathleen Peterson, it’s never going to matter how plausible you manage to make this theory. There’s nothing in the way of tangible evidence to back it up, and there never will be. It’s not the sort of thing that can be proven.

In short, Larry, the state isn’t required to gum up the legal system so that any wild theory to a crime can be aired. Furthermore, your invocation of the Duke lacrosse case only demonstrates the essential silliness of your crusade. There was actual exonerating evidence available to investigators in that case.

But their problem was that they instead bought the accuser’s wild story about a rape — a tale that was almost as crazy as yours.

This entry was posted on Wednesday, May 28th, 2008 at 1:01 am and is filed under Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Responses are currently closed, but you can trackback from your own site.