McPhee has built a career on such small detonations of knowledge. His mind is pure curiosity: It aspires to flow into every last corner of the world, especially the places most of us overlook. Literature has always sought transcendence in purportedly trivial subjects — “a world in a grain of sand,” as Blake put it — but few have ever pushed the impulse further than McPhee. He once wrote an entire book about oranges, called, simply, “Oranges” — the literary cousin of Duchamp’s urinal mounted in an art museum. In 1999, McPhee won a Pulitzer Prize for his 700-page geology collection, “Annals of the Former World,” which explains for the general reader how all of North America came to exist. (“At any location on earth, as the rock record goes down into time and out into earlier geographies it touches upon tens of hundreds of stories, wherein the face of the earth often changed, changed utterly, and changed again, like the face of a crackling fire.”) He has now published 30 books, all of which are still in print — a series of idiosyncratic tributes to the world that, in aggregate, form a world unto themselves.
Much of the struggle, for McPhee, has to do with structure. “Structure has preoccupied me in every project,” he writes, which is as true as saying that Ahab, on his nautical adventures, was preoccupied by a certain whale. McPhee is obsessed with structure. He sweats and frets over the arrangement of a composition before he can begin writing. He seems to pour a whole novel’s worth of creative energy just into settling which bits will follow which other bits.
The payoff of that labor is enormous. Structure, in McPhee’s writing, carries as much meaning as the words themselves. What a more ordinary writer might say directly, McPhee will express through the white space between chapters or an odd juxtaposition of sentences. It is like Morse code: a message communicated by gaps.
The 15-year-old legal proceedings against author Michael Peterson for the alleged murder of his wife, Kathleen, constitute one of the more notorious and extensively documented criminal cases of our time. It has provided fodder for two Dateline segments, a Lifetime movie, an expansive documentary film series, and dozens of true-crime television episodes and podcasts. It is lurid, tinged with drugs and alcohol, replete with an ongoing extramarital affair with a prostitute, and soaked in blood—lots of blood. It also spawned a criminal defense theory that sounds like a punch line: The owl did it.
But it’s not a joke. And even though the "Owl Theory," which states that a Barred Owl is responsible for the chain of events that led to Kathleen Peterson's eventual demise, hasn't made it to trial yet, depending what happens next in the case, there's a slight chance it could still be presented....
... Kathleen Peterson's autopsy revealed seven lacerations, including very deep ones in the back of her scalp, and pine needles stuck to one of her hands, which both held clumps of her own hair.
If it weren’t for this misstep by the prosecution, the case might have gone in a wildly different direction—blame the owl. But how exactly could an owl be responsible for the death of Kathleen Peterson? The Owl Theory essentially posits that a Barred Owl attacked Peterson, got entangled in her hair, and inflicted serious injuries, including the removal of part of her scalp, which triggered a series of events that led to her death after falling down a flight of stairs. The theory first came to light in late 2009, after attorney Larry Pollard, a friend and neighbor of Peterson’s, took a fresh look at the evidence. Her autopsy revealed seven lacerations, including very deep ones in the back of her scalp, and pine needles stuck to one of her hands, which both held clumps of her own hair. As Pollard discovered, the strands in the victim’s left hand contained three small feathers. Also, as Pollard and several ornithological experts noted, the pattern and shape of the cuts on Kathleen Peterson’s head suggest a weapon quite unlike a fireplace tool. If the culprit was an intruder, the finger points to the Barred Owl, a common species in and around Durham.
“When you look at her injuries, they do appear consistent with being made by an owl’s talons,” Peterson’s defense attorney Mary Jude Darrow tells Audubon.....
After delving into the evidence, Davis was convinced that an owl had attacked Kathleen Peterson, setting into motion the events that would lead to her death at the bottom of the stairs. She based her decision on the shape and placement of the victim’s wounds (a match to how the owl's talons would strike), the timing of the attack (in December, when owls are mating and highly territorial), the presence of the tiny feather (owl feet are covered with them), and the force of the impact. A 2014 study published in the Journal of Experimental Biology notes that an owl weighing less than a pound can pounce on a mouse with force equivalent to 150 times the weight of the rodent. If a 175-pound human were struck with the same intensity, it would feel like being hit by a 13-ton truck.
An owl strike can definitely cause blunt force trauma.
Mrs. Peterson weighed 120 pounds and the suspect bird in the Owl Theory, an adult Barred Owl, weighs between one and two-and-a-half pounds and can fly at speeds of up to 40 miles an hour. Of course, the truck analogy is outside the limits of a raptor’s power, but the point is clear: An owl strike can definitely cause blunt force trauma. What's more, the raptors are known to dive-bomb humans when they feel threatened, almost always targeting the head. For example, in 2015, there were repeated Barred Owl attacks on joggers in a park in Salem, Oregon. The victims of those strikes, which earned the bird(s) the name “Owlcapone,” suffered from multiple half-inch talon cuts.
Davis also points out that the victim would have been taken by surprise because the shape of an owl’s feathers—serrated on one side to cut through the air, and fringed along the other edge—make it silent in flight.
In a 25-minute interview with Raleigh news station WRAL in March, Pollard laid out the Owl Theory in great detail. “The other wounds that are on her body seem to give a compelling case to this having been done by an owl,” he said. “The injuries to the eyes, and the injuries to the elbows, and the little pock marks on her wrists, here and here, all are consistent with her having her hands over her head, holding onto her hair, because something is grasping that hair.”
Pollard’s timeline shows that Kathleen Peterson had been drinking wine with her husband by the backyard pool at night, and then headed through the house and into the front yard for reasons unknown. (Toxicology reports also found anti-anxiety and muscle-relaxant medication in her blood.) That’s where the raptor attacked. Peterson was out of earshot while his wife fought off the bird. The victim then walked into the house; blood was found on the front steps and smeared on the inside of the door. After all of this, while buzzed on wine and pills, she climbed the stairs, presumably en route to the master bedroom. But when she reached the last step, she fell backwards and tumbled to the bottom of the staircase. A crime scene photo shows her with her neck bent severely to the left, her head resting on the bottom stair, and her body splayed on the floor in a massive pool of blood.
If Peterson’s team succeeds in having the case dismissed on Monday, the sordid tale will end, and the Owl Theory will remain just that—a theory. Either way, Davis remains convinced that it is true.
“The owl didn’t kill Kathleen Peterson,” Davis says. “The owl just knocked her in the head. She would have been fine if she’d gone up and crawled into bed and slept it off.”
For North Sea shrimp we go all the way to Morocco. That’s where the shrimps are peeled, and that’s where we came up with the idea of creating this exclusive premium meal. Teaming up with some of the biggest shrimp processors, we’ve managed to turn an otherwise useless product into a valuable claim-ingredient.
The benefits of eating insects are multifold. They’re tasty, nutritious and packed with protein. And what’s more, you can grow and harvest the product in a completely controlled environment. By doing so, and by offering you our first self-bred product, IQI takes the lead in product innovation.
1949 - Two private member's bills to ban, or restrict, hunting fail to make it onto the statute books. One is withdrawn, the other is defeated on its second reading in the Commons. The Labour government appoints a committee of inquiry to investigate all forms of hunting. The committee concludes: "Fox hunting makes a very important contribution to the control of foxes, and involves less cruelty than most other methods of controlling them. It should therefore be allowed to continue."
1970 - The House of Commons votes for legislation to ban hare coursing. However, the bill runs out of time when the general election is called.
1992 - A private member's bill to make hunting with dogs illegal is rejected by the Commons. The Wild Mammals (Protection) Bill, proposed by Labour MP Kevin McNamara, is defeated on its second reading.
1993 - Labour MP and animal rights campaigner Tony Banks fails in his attempt to get Parliament to pass his Fox Hunting (Abolition) Bill.
1995 - Labour MP John McFall is unsuccessful with his private member's bill to ban hunting with hounds. The Wild Mammals (Protection) Bill passes its second reading in the Commons. But it is heavily amended before it falls in the Lords.
May 1997 - The Labour Party wins the general election. In its manifesto it promises: "We will ensure greater protection for wildlife. We have advocated new measures to promote animal welfare, including a free vote in Parliament on whether hunting with hounds should be banned."
November 5, 1997 - Labour MP Michael Foster publishes a private member's bill to ban hunting with dogs. The government delivers a blow to the chances of the bill becoming law by refusing to grant the legislation any of its Parliamentary time.
March 1, 1998 - After the Foster bill passes its second reading in the Commons, the pro-hunting Countryside Alliance organises a massive protest rally in London. An estimated 250,000 people join the countryside march to protest against the bill and threats to other aspects of rural life.
March 13, 1998 - Hunt supporters celebrate as the Foster bill runs out of time during its report stage in the Commons. The bill is talked out by hunt-supporting MPs who table hundreds of amendments to block the legislation's progress. Mr Foster pledges to fight on.
July 3, 1998 - Mr Foster withdraws his bill citing the "cynical tactics" of his opponents. He insists that to carry on would deprive other valuable legislation, such as a law on puppy farms, of valuable Parliamentary time. He predicts that fox hunting will still be banned during this Parliament. But he says it is now up to the government to see the job through.
July 8, 1999 - Prime Minister Tony Blair makes a surprise announcement that he plans to make fox hunting illegal and before the next general election if possible.
July 12, 1999 - Labour denies that Mr Blair's pledge is connected to an extra £100,000 donation it had received from an anti-hunt pressure group. The Political Animal Lobby (PAL), had previously given £1m to the party before the 1997 election. PAL had also made donations to the Tories and the Liberal Democrats.
July 12, 1999 - Labour MSP Mike Watson announces plans to put forward a private member's bill in the Scottish Parliament to ban hunting with dogs in Scotland. He predicts the bill could come into force by Spring 2000.
September 15, 1999 - Hunt supporters set up a national body, the Independent Supervisory for Hunting, to ensure hunting is carried out in a "proper and humane manner".
October 1, 1999 - Tony Blair insists he can deliver his promise to ban fox hunting before the next election, despite claims that it will have to wait until the House of Lords is reformed.
November 11, 1999 - The government announces it will support a backbenchers' bill on fox hunting.
November 14, 1999 - Home Secretary Jack Straw announces an inquiry into the effect of a fox hunting ban on the rural economy, to be led by Lord Burns.
March 2000 - MSP Mike Watson's bill starts its passage through the Scottish Parliament.
April 2000 - Mr Straw looks at producing a bill where MPs choose between the three options of an outright ban, no change and stricter regulation of hunting.
May 30, 2000 - Labour backbenchers urge the government to put its weight behind a hunting ban or risk losing voters, and Labour MP Gordon Prentice proposes an amendment to the Countryside and Rights of Way Bill to ban the sport.
June 2000 - The Burns inquiry says between 6,000 and 8,000 jobs would be lost if hunting was banned, half the number suggested by some pro-hunt groups. It finds no conclusive evidence that foxes suffer physical pain when pursued, but accepts they do not die immediately.
February 2001 - Hunting suspended because of the foot-and-mouth disease outbreak.
February 20, 2001 - MPs vote by a majority of 179 for an outright ban as the hunting bill clears the Commons
March 26, 2001 - House of Lords votes by 317 to 68 against the ban. The hunting bill runs out of time when the general election is called.
June 2001 - The Queen's Speech promises another free vote for MPs on hunting.
October 2001 - More than 200 MPs back a Commons motion calling on the government to honour its promises and make time for a vote on banning hunting.
February 2002 - Scottish Parliament bans hunting in Scotland.
February 28, 2002 - Ministers ready to set out timetable for a hunting bill.
March 2002 - The House of Commons and the House of Lords are asked to choose between three options: a complete ban, the preservation of the status quo and the compromise of licensed fox hunting. The Commons opted for a complete ban while the Lords chose the "Middle Way" option.
September 22, 2002: The Countryside Alliance organized a massive march in central London to promote the interests of rural Britain and especially to oppose a ban on hunting with dogs. The British National Party tries to co-opt the march, but the Countryside Alliance issues a statement: "Everything we stand for is the opposite of what they believe in." Over 400,000 people attend the March, still the largest political march in British history.
December 3, 2002 - Rural Affairs Minister Alun Michael unveils the Hunting Bill, which would allow some fox hunting to continue under a strict system of licensing but would outlaw hare coursing and stag hunting. Mr Michael says he hopes the compromise would avoid further lengthy battles between the pro-hunting Lords and the anti-hunting Commons.
June 26, 2003 - Commons Leader Peter Hain tells MPs he has been advised that major amendments to the bill - such as moves towards a complete ban on hunting - could mean it has to be sent to a standing committee and cause delays.
June 30, 2003 - An amendment from Labour MP Tony Banks proposing a complete ban is passed by 362 votes to 154.
July 1, 2003 - Alun Michael says that he would be surprised if there was not a ban on fox hunting, with a few exemptions, by 2005. MPs vote to turn the Hunting Bill into an outright ban on hunting with dogs after five hours of intense Commons debate by 362 votes to 154.
July 10, 2003 - Hunting Bill clears the House of Commons after MPs give the measure, which makes no provision for compensation, a third reading by 317 votes to 145.
October 21, 2003 - The bill returns to the House of Lords for its committee stage. A cross-party group of peers throws out MPs' plans for a complete ban and replace them with a licensing regime for fox and stag hunting, as well as hare coursing. But anti-hunting MPs vote for the bill to be re-written to become a wholesale ban on hunting with dogs in England and Wales. The House of Lords then rejects that call in a vote and the legislation runs out of parliamentary time.
September 8, 2004 - The government announces plans to give MPs a free vote on the Hunting Bill by the end of the parliamentary session in November. The Bill is similar to the one originally proposed and would lead to an outright ban on fox hunting. Rural minister Alun Michaels says the fox hunting issue has already taken too much parliamentary time and the government is prepared to deploy the little-used Parliament Act to over-rule the Lords if peers try to block it. But Commons leader Peter Hain says, if the bill becomes law, an actual ban on fox hunting would not come into force for two years. This would allow people involved in hunting to wind down their businesses, but also avoids pro-hunting demonstrations during 2005's expected general election campaign.
