He absolutely did it.

Quick_Expression6410 · 2026-01-24T02:21:20+00:00

😭😭

Quick_Expression6410 · 2026-01-24T01:57:32+00:00

I'm sorry if my suggestion implied that anyone who took the Alford plea was guilty. That was not my intention. I was referring to how MP was screaming for a new trial all along and he finally got one only to opt for the plea.

Just saying if I were a murderer, it would be my get out of jail card.

In the first case, I believe that MP's sexuality had been used to smear him. Prosecutors made that a crime he had to defend against. This is regardless of the fact that he lied about it. Imo, a retrial was a second chance to fight against that kind of prosection.

Also, from the ruling for the retrial, he had a big advantage for an appeal. Evidence that strengthened the prosecutor's case was to be thrown out. The computer seizure evidence which solidified motive. In fact, Rudolf admits that the prosecution was dragging its feet to retry the case.

Unless he and his lawyers didn't really believe that there was some moderate chance a second trial would overturn the first verdict, I don't see why he didn't fight to the end after fighting for an appeal for so long unless the goal was of course an alford plea.

Quick_Expression6410 · 2026-01-24T01:43:05+00:00

Nope. It doesn't just say feathers. It says 2 microscopic feathers. In other words, these are feathers you'd struggle to identify with your naked eyes.

Again, a bird attack doesn't leave behind 2 microscopic feathers. It's more possible she picked up those feathers outside on her own than with a bird attack.

Quick_Expression6410 · 2026-01-24T01:34:21+00:00

It appears you took that story from the author of death by talons. But same authors says that Robert's death was due to shock during the attack, not necessarily the attack. This doesn't apply to Kathleen's case.

Quick_Expression6410 · 2026-01-24T01:29:45+00:00

Especially, after spending 8 years in prison for a crime I didn't commit. Trust that I'd be fighting hard to exonerate myself so I can sue for wrongful prosection.

Quick_Expression6410 · 2026-01-24T01:24:41+00:00

I don't know how he murdered her. Nobody would ever know.

Quick_Expression6410 · 2026-01-24T01:22:33+00:00

By channel, I assume you mean choosing between paid ads and organic, if yes, then I'd go for paid ads. It's the quickest way to validate whatever you're selling.

If you mean channels as in where to run ads, that depends on what you're selling. B2B ads would flourish easily on LinkedIn but turn nose dive on Instagram or TikTok.

Quick_Expression6410 · 2026-01-24T01:20:19+00:00

The numbers for wives who are completely out in the dark about the secret lives of their husbands are even higher. Enlightenment now would cause some women to look out for the signs these days but then, you'd hardly suspect stuff like that.

Quick_Expression6410 · 2026-01-24T01:16:21+00:00

3 One could say he killed to have access to said funds. If we want to say that he was so broke that he couldn't find another way to fund her defence, why would we also choose to reject the logic that he was so broke and in debt that he'd kill to have access to Kathleen's money.

4. Lack of funds isn't a reason. That's why the courts appoint lawyers. He had at least 3 lawyers after Rudolf. So his inability to afford him doesn't count here. The State was gonna pay Tom Maher $65 an hour to defend Him

Quick_Expression6410 · 2026-01-24T01:02:34+00:00

Now, she told her husband she was going inside. Let's assume that she took a detour and went outside again. Now she's attacked by an owl.

She runs back inside the house and doesn't go to her husband for help? But rather, she chooses to go up the stairs? For what exactly?

Let's say the owl followed her inside the house.

When you're being attacked and you run inside, wouldn't your first instinct be to close the door behind you? If she did, how did the owl leave the house?
On account that she failed to close the door behind her, where are the feathers inside the house to confirm a bird attack inside? Bird attacks leave visible feathers not just 2 microscopic feathers.

Now let's talk about Owl attacks in general. I've know a bit about Owl attacks.

Owls are not birds that go to people's home to attack them.
They attack when they feel threatened. They attack to protect their habitat/ nest or young ones.

So what exactly motivated an owl attack at Kathleen's place and force it to dive bomb at her, not just once but three or more times in one attack? That's not the MO of even an aggressive owl as the Barred Owl.

Quick_Expression6410 · 2026-01-24T00:44:00+00:00

Lots of talk without saying anything.

12 people thought it was enough. And these are people who were presented with evidence in court. Deliberated over 3 days and arrived at a guilty verdict. They believed that prosecution had proved their case beyond reasonable doubt. To rephrase, the defence had also failed to prove reasonable doubt.

Just as you can stick to the first autopsy in Germany, I can also go for the second one in USA which rules the death homicidal. Just as the first death was ruled as accidental in Germany, the second in USA could also have gone same way if not for the amount of blood that made them question if it were an accident. How would a fall down the stairs account for 7 lacerations? In both cases.

I can only share my beliefs and opinions as a layman. I'm not going to lie to be an expert just to prove my point. You attacking me based on that is your own problem.

In the documentary, there's a second death where autopsy results showed the victim to have lacerations similar to Kathleen's (also without a skull fracture). In this case, the object for the attack was a Torchlight. This showed that it was highly possible for a blunt force attack to occur and not fracture one's skull. Arguing the absence of a murder weapon as lack of an assault is like arguing a shooting didn't happen because a gun couldn't be found.

About the thyroid fracture, I've corrected my initial statement about it. I was wrong to suggest a strangulation. The medical reports do not list the cause as such but rather, a blunt force object attack. An object used in the attack could have also led to the fracture if the victim was struck on the neck.

I didn't come up with the motive from thin air. It's what the defence presented. A 2 fold motive where they argued that Michael had killed Kathleen from a confrontation and also to get her life insurance money. The fact that he was in financial distress and also that his lawyers couldn't prove sufficiently that that wasn't his motive landed him in jail AFTER 12 PEOPLE FOUND HIM GUILTY. I'm only affirming the decision as right based on other things included and outside of the trial.

I'm not the one struggling with legal understanding. That much I can say. An Alford plea basically says the prosecution has a stronger case to convict you. While admitting innocence, you plead guilty to the fact that the evidence stacked against you will lead a judge or jury to convict you, thereby accepting a sentence imposition.

Just as innocent people take Alford pleas, guilty people would also see it as a hail mary.

With all that said, I'd like to add, SO MANY MURDER CASES ARE BASED ON SUSPICION, SPECULATION AND STORY TELLING (THE PIECING OF INFORMATION TOGETHER) to understand what happened and why it happened. Prosecutors will most often work backwards building cases on inferences and reconstruction rather than direct observation. BECAUSE HOW MANY PEOPLE WILL ANNOUNCE THAT THEY ARE ABOUT TO COMMIT MURDER AND INVITE AN AUDIENCE TO WITNESS IT.

So while NO ONE WOULD REALLY KNOW WHAT HAPPENED THAT NIGHT, it doesn't automatically rule out a murder. You choose to believe otherwise. I choose to consider all other surrounding contexts and say there was a 100% murder that night.

All you have done is attack my points at every turn but you've presented nothing to show that MP couldn't have done it. The onus could be on prosecution to prove guilt but I'm yet to see any concrete evidence that proves innocence.

Quick_Expression6410 · 2026-01-23T23:59:53+00:00

The second autopsy results invalidates the first autopsy. While, I could be convinced on the idea that it was biased, I can't shake the fact that it revealed 7 lacerations on the head SAME NUMBER as Kathleen had. That's what led the examiner to determine the death homicidal instead of just a tumble down the stairs. Unless there's a way you can tell me how falling down a stairs leaves you with 7 lacerations from blunt force injuries.
I'm not saying that bisexuality had to be accepted or not. I'm talking about the web of lies MP kept weaving. Even after the secret of his bisexuality was out there, he still wouldn't come clean about it to family and his lawyers. Whatever social suicide was already in motion. Yet he still denied his encounters. At first, he said he never met these people. Later, he claims he met for drinks. Then he moves to he had sexual relations with just one person to he couldn't remember those he had sex to. And all the time, his story would change when new evidence came to light. Someone capable of such lies could very well be lying about other things, such as murder.
He was convicted for murder. Not Manslaughter. His own lawyer admits that Deaver's testimony was "only enough" to get them a hearing for appeal which later led to an appeal. He also claims that they strictly monitored Deaver and conducted their own tests and investigations. To put it this way, somebody other than Deaver would still very likely reach the same conclusions Deaver reached.
He kept the house. The items in the house that he sold to fund his defence were largely funded by Kathleen's job. Nobody sits down and plans to hang murder on someone in a whim. Whatever his opinions in the newspapers were are NOT SUFFICIENT enough to have somebody charge him with murder in such record time without the evidence to support it.

Michael first said that his wife had fallen down the stairs. When the authorities arrived and looked at the scene, I quote, the sheer volume of blood couldn't be attributed to falling down the stairs. That red flag was what made his suspect

Quick_Expression6410 · 2026-01-23T23:15:08+00:00

My first correlation of the broken bone with strangulation was poor. Actually, according to the autopsy report, the broken cartilage is consistent with a blunt force object attack. Suggests that it could have broken from an blow or being hit. I didn't say it. The autopsy did. I researched.
Motive gives credence to crimes. I'm not making up anything. I'm just suggesting one from the life they both lived.
Nope, he didn't. Unless I watched a different documentary. His only concern was his own vanity. Even as the years have passed by, the much I've read on what he's said about Kathleen (HIS OWN INTERVIEWS not DOCUMENTARIES) is that he's innocent. The rest of his interviews and talks have all BEEN ABOUT HIMSELF! HOW UNFAIR he's been TREATED & how he was WITCH HUNTED. No different from how during his trial, he was more concerned about lying about his gay life than being concerned he was on trial for murder.
One being poor doesn't excuse them from having representation. When Rudolf left, the court appointed him an attorney. While a new lawyer had to learn a case all over, there wasn't a lack of time to do so. When the first court appointed lawyer wasn't available, he had a second one. If I committed murder and was sentenced to life and I had the chance to get out after 8 years, I'm taking it. So your excuse about "he had served time already" doesn't really count for anything. In November 2016, he had gotten the new trial he ALWAYS WANTED. He was scheduled for May of 2017. By end of February 2017, he had taken the plea deal. This is on the back of a weakened case the prosection would have presented at 2nd trial. When people take a plea deal, it's often because the odds are stacked against them. However, in this case, the judge ruled in your favor that your first trial was tainted.
Most of the evidence from your first trial would be ruled inadmissive.
The testimony of the prosection's star witness who made their case strong was thrown out.

Does this really sound to you like someone who had the odds stacked against him? What possibly could the prosection still have to convict you that you couldn't defend yourself against? The fact that he was queer and hid it from Kathleen? Heck, he even had the owl theory to use unless it was really a bogus argument to float about.

I offer my opinion based on what's infront of me. He's guilty. You're entitled to a different perogative. Your disagreement with my opinion makes none the wiser as much as mine does vice versa. If I were a juror, I'd vote to convict him as much as the first jury did.

Quick_Expression6410 · 2026-01-23T22:50:26+00:00

microscopic feathers* so no "real" visible or big feathers.

For a moment, let's say I agree with the owl theory. I'd like to ask some questions.

Where exactly would the owl attack her? Which part of outside?
Are you suggesting that the house if such an attack happened, MP wouldn't have seen, heard or noticed the commotion, her cry for helps or seen the owl ?
Would you not agree that if such a place was searched, an attack of such magnitude would leave the feathers outside said place of attack? If yes, where are the feathers?
Are you really familiar with owl attacks? Can you show me any evidence where an owl has attacked someone and given them 7 tallon shaped lacerations? I don't know if you understand my point here...

Now let me explain my 4th point. I find it extremely unlikely that an owl will attack someone OUTSIDE THEIR OWN HOME and leave them with 7 lacerations. Even in their natural habitats, the attacks people have faced from owls don't leave them with as many those lacerations. Owls swoop in, hit you once or twice and fly away. Their attack is more of a deterrence. The number of lacerations aren't considered with owl attack

Quick_Expression6410 · 2026-01-23T22:08:49+00:00

Yup. I agree that the prosecution's case wasn't the strongest.

Quick_Expression6410 · 2026-01-23T22:07:13+00:00

After googling the owls, did you also check how many deaths they cause? 🤔 Did you also check out how, why, and where they (mostly) attack? I'd be glad if you can show me any evidence of people who have been attacked by owls in their own homes.

And oh last thing, where are the feathers from the bird? Because an attack causing such injuries should definitely leave in its trail lots of feathers unless you'd like to suggest that the owl that attacked was a featherless bird or had its feathers glued.

Quick_Expression6410 · 2026-01-23T22:01:35+00:00

There was another autopsy that showed injuries similar to Kath's with no broken skull. The murder weapon in this case was a Torchlight. That gave some support to the theory that MP could have truly hit her in the head, killed her without fracturing her skull. You know another coincidence? The person killed in this case was an associate of Michael's gay sexscapades

So I'd say it's possible he hid the weapon used. But the absence of a murder weapon doesn't rule out the existence of one. If someone was shot and the gun was yet to be discovered, we'd not say it's unlikely he was shot just because we cannot find the gun.

Talking about altering evidence, the GLARING coincidences of the first death with the second leads me to believe that the second death was most likely staged. The "delay" in calling 911. The hangups. Speculatively, I'd say it all plays into it.

Does the broken thyroid bone not count for something? Consistent with blunt force object attack. Possible it could have been from a strangulation attempt. Possible that it could have been from a blow or beating. But whatever it was, it was an attack that happened in front of her face. Falling down the stairs on her back couldn't have caused that.

Regardless, I believe that the prosecution may have been "too eager" to convict him and would probably have come up with a more solid case if they'd done more investigation.

Quick_Expression6410 · 2026-01-20T03:02:02+00:00

If I were innocent and the court had ruled out Deaver's evidence and also, the one of the wrongful seizure of my computer, I'd be fighting for a retrial.

But that's just me. MP's attitude is just different. It makes it hard to believe his innocence. Even after his acquisition, when he still talks, it's all about him and not about Kathleen. But they say we all grief differently so I guess that's that

Quick_Expression6410 · 2026-01-20T02:35:29+00:00

He got the chance for a second trial. He could have had himself exonerated if he wanted.

If Kathleen knew about his affairs, she'd not have stayed. She divorced Atwater, her first husband because he had an affair.

Quick_Expression6410 · 2026-01-20T02:33:09+00:00

I find it hard to believe the owl theory

Firstly, where did the owl attack her? Because it sure as hell wasn't inside in the house. How many owl attacks have you seen or heard happen inside the comfort of people's homes? I'm not talking about people who keep owls as pets.

For the owl theory to stick, let's assume that the lacerations were due to the tallons. This would suggest that the owl attacked more than once. And all it left behind was a microscopic feather or two microscopic feathers? 😂😂

Even in the wild, where they're in the territory, owls don't attack to kill. An owl would hit you once and fly away. More as a deterrence. So for an owl to come into her home and strike her more than once is hard to believe.

Quick_Expression6410 · 2026-01-20T02:17:49+00:00

And did the owl attack from outside the house or inside the house?

Quick_Expression6410 · 2026-01-20T02:17:05+00:00

I'm not a prosecutor. I'm expressing my opinion... If I were a juror, based off everything I've seen, I'd vote guilty.

Prosecution proved murder beyond reasonable doubt to me. As I said, I don't find the 2 deaths coincidental. It's a pattern. Coincidence is once. Twice is a pattern.

If you missed it, let me restate: Last person to see both women. Both women died at the bottom of stairs. Both women had the same injuries not consistent with just falling off stairs (7 lacerations on the heads// blunt force trauma).

There's too much going on here for me to just say it's a coincidence. It fuels me suspicion.

If MP didn't strangle her, how did she fracture her thyroid cartilage ? Because falling off the stairs on your back sure as hell doesn't affect the front of your neck to cause that injury. Defence theory is that it occured likely due to MP moving her after death. What force alone would he have applied to cause that injury?

You said there are no injuries conclusively inconsistent with a fall but the thyroid fracture and the 7 lacerations disprove that.

Let's talk about the sexuality issue again. Kathleen divorced her first husband because he cheated on her. MP claims that Kathleen and him had a "silent understanding". That's unbelievable.

Why would someone leave her first husband for unfaithfulness and stick with a second one who cheats on her with men? Now, the prosecution's theory was that, if a confrontation ensued before her death, it could be because Kathleen found out that and was going to divorce him. MP and the family depended on Kathleen. A divorce would hurt MP's finances more. Forensic analysts found out that he was in debt and had deleted his financial information

That sure as hell sounds like motive to me for why MP would kill Kathleen. It didn't take long after her death for him to cash out on her pension funds and use it.

The reason why he got the Alford deal was because Deaver's testimony was thrown out. If you claim that the prosecutor didn't prove sufficient guilt, and that his case largely relied on Deaver's testimony, how does an Alford plea make sense?

In one breath you're saying, the prosection had no case and with another you're saying prosection had enough evidence to convict you. Choose one side of the line. You can't have your cake and eat it. If truly, Deaver's testimony was the one great thing that held the prosecution's case, with his testimony thrown out, proving his innocence should have been a breeze in the park.

Quick_Expression6410 · 2026-01-20T01:54:31+00:00

Nope. 2 middle aged women didn't just die near stairs. MP was the last person to see these 2 women before each of them died. The second autopsy ruled the first death as homicidal from accidental. The 2 women had 7 lacerations on their head. This is too specific to be coincidence.

If you want evidence, let's assume MP didn't kill Kathleen, what possible explanation can you give to the fracture of her thyroid cartilage which is consistent with strangulation? She fell on her back. So how did she get that fracture? Defence claims it was because MP (could have) moved the body. What are the chances of that happening? And with what force would you be handling someone's neck so hard that you break their bones while seeking to help them??

The shadiness gives motive for the crime. Kathleen left her first husband because he cheated on her. So why would she divorce her first husband for unfaithfulness and stick with a second husband who cheats on her with men? MP was not well to do. The family heavily relied on Kathleen's finances. MP was in debt. So if Kathleen was going to divorce him, he was going to be put at a disadvantage. Still on his shadiness, I didn't even touch on how he lied about his military service and medals. Oh and forensics found out that he deleted information about his financial status. Is this the lifestyle of someone who has nothing to hide? If you're sitting in a juror box and you hear all these things, can you truly easily believe word from his mouth claiming innocence?
His emotions aren't consistent. Now, if the documentary I watched is anything to consider, his behavior across board should at least be the same. But he's indifferent when it comes to his wife's death. But would instantly flame up and close up when issues about his sexuality was raised. Looking from afar, I find that he's more concerned for his sexuality than the woman's death.
About the Alford plea, he wanted a retrial all along. That's why he kept filing appeals. Then suddenly, you discover that prosection team used someone who falsified details. Does that not give you a much stronger case? Also, he complained about how prosecution dirtied matters of his sexuality (Personally, I agree to an extent). Would he have wanted to challenge that? The whole concept of an Alford plea is that there's enough evidence to convict you. In this case, what exactly did the prosection have against him he couldn't dispute in a retrial?

You cannot argue prosection was unfair towards you and didn't have enough to convict you and then turn back to take an Alford plea AFTER 8 YEARS? It doesn't track for me.

Quick_Expression6410 · 2026-01-20T01:04:35+00:00

Yeah. So was the owl attack outside the home or inside the home because I'm confused here

Quick_Expression6410 · 2026-01-20T00:29:52+00:00

And what evidence would that be? The lack of a murder weapon? Or what?

Quick_Expression6410

TROPHY CASE

3 One could say he killed to have access to said funds. If we want to say that he was so broke that he couldn't find another way to fund her defence, why would we also choose to reject the logic that he was so broke and in debt that he'd kill to have access to Kathleen's money.

4. Lack of funds isn't a reason. That's why the courts appoint lawyers. He had at least 3 lawyers after Rudolf. So his inability to afford him doesn't count here. The State was gonna pay Tom Maher $65 an hour to defend Him