Michael Louise (C), Catherine and George Peacock (L and R); images via Vermont State Police
An 80-year-old upstate New York man charged with murdering his in-laws decades ago in Vermont has been allowed bail after the Green Mountain State’s highest court affirmed a chain of custody issue surrounding the state’s star blood evidence was too big to ignore.
In the eyes of the Vermont Supreme Court, the only “direct evidence” tying Michael Louise to the murders of 76-year-old George Peacock and 73-year-old Catherine Peacock — a speck of George’s blood on a floor mat inside the defendant’s 1986 Chevy Celebrity — is buttressed by inadmissible hearsay, after the state “provided no testimony or affidavit from the New York trooper who collected the floor mat” blood sample.
“Here, the statement in the forensic laboratory records that the ‘[e]vidence [was] collected from suspect vehicle by New York Trooper Charles Stepneski in N. Syracuse, N.Y.’ necessarily falls within that [hearsay] definition because: (1) it was made outside of the court; and (2) it is offered to prove the very assertion it makes, that the floor mat was collected by Trooper Stepneski,” wrote Associate Justice of the Vermont Supreme Court Nancy J. Waples on April 28. “Therefore, unless this statement falls into one of the hearsay exceptions outlined in Vermont Rules of Evidence 803 or 804, it would not be admissible evidence.”
The high court found that the “the business-records exception” cited by the prosecution did not apply here because the statement was “testimonial.”
“The State attempted to rely on these records to establish the chain of custody for the blood sample under the business-records exception,” but “the statements contained in the forensic laboratory records were testimonial in nature, and thus must be excluded from consideration,” Waples wrote. “With the exclusion of the State’s only direct evidence tying the blood sample to defendant’s vehicle, the trial court went on to find that the remaining circumstantial evidence was insufficient to hold defendant without bail under 13 V.S.A. § 7553.”
As Law&Crime reported previously, George and Catherine Peacock were found dead inside their Danby, Vermont, home along Route 7 in September 1989 by a neighbor who saw George’s body through a front porch window. The Peacocks, retirees who owned a gift shop on their property, were stabbed multiple times, but there was “no sign of forced entry” at the scene, according to Vermont State Police.
Up until October 2022, when Liverpool, New York’s Michael Louise was arrested, no charges had been brought for more than 33 years. The status of the case remained unchanged for decades even though Louise was viewed with suspicion almost from the very start after he “temporarily” left the area under alarming circumstances. So-called “suicide notes” he left for his wife Penny Louise just two weeks after the Sept. 13, 1989 murders form part of the state’s circumstantial evidence in the case.
“Before leaving home, temporarily, on September 29, 1989, the defendant left his wife two notes. The police interpreted the notes as ‘suicide notes.’ In the notes, the defendant professes his love to his wife and proclaims his innocence in her parents’ murders. He also says, ‘This all started the day your parents died,”” said Vermont Superior Court Judge Cortland Corsones’ March 31 ruling outlining findings of fact. “He explains in the note that he was heading to her parents house to get the long boards, but that he turned around because he was tired. He explains in the note that he did not tell his wife about the trip because he did not want her to worry. He also says in the note that he ‘freaked right out’ when he learned about the murders because if he had driven straight through to her parents residence he would have arrived at about the time they were killed.”
The trial court spelled out the extent of the circumstantial evidence and concluded it wasn’t enough to hold Louise without bail:
In our case there is no direct evidence that the defendant murdered the Peacocks. Therefore, the court must determine whether the State has presented sufficient circumstantial evidence to meet its burden that defendant committed these crimes. The State’s circumstantial evidence includes the following. On the day the Peacocks were murdered, the defendant intended to travel to their residence. Had he traveled straight through, the defendant would have arrived at the Peacocks’ residence during the window of time when they were killed. The defendant’s stated intention in going to the Peacocks was to retrieve particle boards that he had left there previously. When police investigated the scene, after the murders, they observed that the particle boards had been moved. The defendant told law enforcement and others that on his way to the Peacocks he got tired and turned around near Saratoga, NY without having entered VT. Within weeks of the murders, the defendant told Patricia Gannon that he had gone all the way to VT – but then it was a blank or a “blackout.” After learning that the investigation was focusing on him, the defendant left his wife what could be considered as suicide notes and left the area for a short while. In the notes, the defendant did not make any reference to having killed the Peacocks, and in fact denied any involvement in their murders. In one of the notes, the defendant states that he threw one of the rifles into the river. However, the Peacocks were killed a result of having been stabbed with a knife. A bloody footprint was found at the scene of the crimes. Two days after the murders, the defendant told his wife that he had thrown away the boots that he had worn on the day of the murders because they were hurting his feet. In addition, after the defendant was arrested in October 2022, he spoke with his wife on a recorded jail call. During the call, the defendant asked his wife to review an article about the case in a local newspaper. The defendant told his wife that there were statements in the article attributed to her and Patricia Gannon which were not true. He also asked his wife whether there was a lot of blood when she went to the scene to clean up. The defendant’s wife responded that there was, and the defendant then asked her whether she drove their car to the scene. The defendant’s wife responded that she does not recall. The defendant then asked her to think about it because if she had driven their car, she could have been the one that stepped in blood and transferred it to the car.
Without the admissibility of the blood evidence, the circumstantial evidence in total, when viewed “in the light most favorable to the State,” was “insufficient to establish that defendant killed the Peacocks,” the trial court ruled — and the Vermont Supreme Court affirmed.
“For these reasons, we affirm the decision of the trial court declining to hold defendant without bail, and instead imposing $200,000 in cash bail or surety,” the Vermont Supreme Court ruled, alluding to the various factors that the trial court considered when deciding Louise should be allowed bail with conditions.
Judge Corsones noted that Louise has a 1966 conviction for sexually assaulting a minor and mentioned the “suicide notes” the defendant left “after learning he was a prime suspect in the murder of the Peacocks.” Bail conditions were set to “reasonably ensure protection of the public, and to reasonably prevent flight to avoid prosecution.” Louise was barred from leaving New York or Vermont unless he gets “written permission from the court,” had to observe a curfew from 8 p.m. to 6 a.m. at home unless otherwise authorized to leave for legal matters or emergency medical treatment, and could not buy and possess guns or other deadly weapons.
“You must not abuse or harass [niece/witness] Patricia Gannon and [wife] Penny Louise and you shall not discuss this case with Penny Louise in any manner,” the trial court also specified.
Have a tip we should know? [email protected]
Lack of ‘direct evidence’ leads to bail for Michael Louise