S01.E05: The Beating Heart

[peachmangosteen]

Airs May 19th.

[Ellaria]

Didn’t care for this episode for many reasons. I’ve watched enough prison drama; didn’t need more of it. 

I was annoyed by the scenes of the documentary team trying to complete their work. Then I read that the creators of the documentary are unhappy with how they are portrayed in this episode, particularly how it relates to Sophie’s editing and her relationship with Michael. I really don’t know what to think.

https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2022/05/the-staircase-documentary-hbo-max

These events obviously took a toll on Michael’s children and it’s sad to watch. He  is a destructive person.

[MrsR]

43 minutes ago, Ellaria Sand said:

These events obviously took a toll on Michael’s children and it’s sad to watch. He  is a destructive person.

I don't know how the girls or Clayton are doing but I can vouch that Todd is fucked up.

So I live in Durham and Todd now lives in Chapel Hill. Michael moved in with Patty in Durham, same neighborhood, but a much much less grand house. Patty died last fall and Michael is still in that house.

I have hesitated in posting certain links involving Todd because I feel viewers should watch the series with an open mind so that they can come to their own conclusions based on what the show runners choose to include and whether or not the show will include how the children are faring now. I will post those links on the thread for the final episode.

I will say that Todd had drug and alcohol issues for years but is now sober and likes now to drive around town in his red Corvette and likes being noticed. Very much so. But also very much a head case.

This was a difficult episode because of the documentary stuff which is so disputed by the documentarians.

Where does the truth lie?

[Ellaria]

17 minutes ago, MrsR said:

Where does the truth lie?

And that question is the true heart of this story. There are so many questions that can never be answered.

[Kirsty]

2 hours ago, Ellaria Sand said:

Didn’t care for this episode for many reasons.

I didn't much care for it either.

Up to this episode, I found the show really gripping. I suppose that's because it posed the questions: Is Michael guilty? When will Kathleen discover his relationships with men? What really happened? How will his trial go? Will his kids ever see through him? And I could kind of root for the kids and hope that they came to accept the truth.

This episode posed none of those questions. It followed Michael in jail and Sophie in France, two characters I don't enjoy spending time with. (Why would I care how the killer gets along in prison?) It dropped the members of Kathleen's family who believe that Michael is guilty, meaning all the characters in the episode were on Michael's side and there was no one who saw through his bullshit.

At the end, did their retired neighbour realise that he knew what caused the lacerations on Kathleen's scalp? At first I thought it was something he had purchased from the Petersons sale. Now I'm wondering if the Petersons had birds in their attic instead of bats.

[bilgistic]

4 hours ago, Kirsty said:

At the end, did their retired neighbour realise that he knew what caused the lacerations on Kathleen's scalp? At first I thought it was something he had purchased from the Petersons sale. Now I'm wondering if the Petersons had birds in their attic instead of bats.

Spoiler

They're setting up for the "owl theory", which will be covered in next week's episode. Spoilers abound at the link.

 

[Milburn Stone]

7 hours ago, Kirsty said:

At the end, did their retired neighbour realise that he knew what caused the lacerations on Kathleen's scalp? 

That seems to be where they're going with that. Not sure it has to be birds and not bats, though. I mean, he looked at the taxidermied bird's claws and connected it to the wounds on her scalp, but it still could have been a bat's claws.

I'm trying to remember if the high-priced lawyer ever heard about Kathleen's belief there were bats in the house. If that ever came up in conversation in his presence, seems like he should have made the same connection the neighbor did.

Edited May 20, 2022 by Milburn Stone

[poeticlicensed]

21 hours ago, MrsR said:

I don't know how the girls or Clayton are doing but I can vouch that Todd is fucked up.

So I live in Durham and Todd now lives in Chapel Hill. Michael moved in with Patty in Durham, same neighborhood, but a much much less grand house. Patty died last fall and Michael is still in that house.

I have hesitated in posting certain links involving Todd because I feel viewers should watch the series with an open mind so that they can come to their own conclusions based on what the show runners choose to include and whether or not the show will include how the children are faring now. I will post those links on the thread for the final episode.

I will say that Todd had drug and alcohol issues for years but is now sober and likes now to drive around town in his red Corvette and likes being noticed. Very much so. But also very much a head case.

This was a difficult episode because of the documentary stuff which is so disputed by the documentarians.

Where does the truth lie?

I dont know about the kids IRL, but I find them all unlikable. I thought they were unlikable before Kathleen was killed. A bunch of privileged kids who don't think they are privileged. 

[Ellaria]

11 hours ago, Milburn Stone said:

I'm trying to remember if the high-priced lawyer ever heard about Kathleen's belief there were bats in the house. If that ever came up in conversation in his presence, seems like he should have made the same connection the neighbor did.

I’m not positive but I don’t believe that a conversation of that sort was shown. It’s impossible to respond to this appropriately without revealing things that have not yet been shown in the drama. Suffice to say that the non-linear aspect of the storytelling can be confusing.

Spoiler

https://www.esquire.com/uk/latest-news/a21343954/the-staircase-netflix-owl-theory-true-crime-doc/

 

Edited May 20, 2022 by Ellaria Sand

[MollyB]

On 5/19/2022 at 8:40 AM, Ellaria Sand said:

Didn’t care for this episode for many reasons. I’ve watched enough prison drama; didn’t need more of it. 

I was annoyed by the scenes of the documentary team trying to complete their work.

Amen to this.  I don't need to be scared straight.  It seems the movie is trying to build (yet more) sympathy for this man.  Ironic, though, that he got beat up because he got a single cell.  Maybe privilege isn't that great. lol.

Sophie was confusing for me.  I know this is presented in concurrent timelines and I usually keep up, but the flashes we have of Sophie-on-his-side in earlier episodes led me to believe she was an after prison affair.  I didn't make her connection with the filmmakers.  I call bullhockey on her knowing he is innocent just from seeing the film she is editing.  The documentary has a lot of bias when it comes to Michael and his children.  Sympathy for them seems to outweigh Kathleen and her death.   Sophie must be one damn good editor for the director and producer to put up with her insistence that Peterson is innocent.

[AZChristian]

Didn't much care for the arguments in French between the production team.

And - maybe I'm awful - but I hope the scenes of him after being beaten up in prison are based on actual fact.  

[poeticlicensed]

1 hour ago, MollyB said:

call bullhockey on her knowing he is innocent just from seeing the film she is editing.

I am not liking the POV of the documentary makers as I dont think it is really adding to the story. But I do think the prosecution didn't have a slam dunk. Honestly they were terrible at building a case so they appealed to the emotion of the jury. My brother in law is a defense attorney and he tells me that honestly those air tight cases with indisputable forensics and witness testimony are rare but at least the prosecution should give you a plausible theory and some evidence to back it up. The prosecutors said hey he's got got dick pics it must be murder. In short they did a shitty job. But IMO the jury wanted to convict period. 

[Ellaria]

37 minutes ago, poeticlicensed said:

I am not liking the POV of the documentary makers as I dont think it is really adding to the story. But I do think the prosecution didn't have a slam dunk. Honestly they were terrible at building a case so they appealed to the emotion of the jury.

I think that he murdered Kathleen but I agree that the prosecution was not able to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. For one thing, the Ratliff case should never have been admitted.

However, I do not believe that the defense did enough to discredit what the prosecution was presenting. While the prosecution played to the emotions of the jury, the defense seems to have ignored their emotions.

I have seen the documentary so I will put the rest of my comments behind spoiler tags:

Spoiler

The defense tried to discredit the blood spatter claims and, IMO, didn’t do it effectively. Often, opposing scientific “opinion” ends up confusing a jury. They didn’t present any character witnesses (yes, I understand that may have been difficult). They couldn’t state that Kathleen “knew” about the male escorts. 

Edited May 20, 2022 by Ellaria Sand

[FlyingEgret]

I know this is petty, but I found it strange that the CD copies sent to the family were written on with marker. The Documentary Company couldnt afford a label maker???

Edited May 21, 2022 by FlyingEgret

[MollyB]

21 hours ago, Ellaria Sand said:

I think that he murdered Kathleen but I agree that the prosecution was not able to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.....However, I do not believe that the defense did enough to discredit what the prosecution was presenting. 

It was all circumstantial evidence since they had no witnesses or weapon, but the fact that he was the only other person in the house strengthened the prosecution's case.  Add in the possible motive of a marriage troubled with money problems (her providing the money for him and his kids) and the sexual evidence on the computer and you can make a pretty good case. 

The defense did seem to rely too heavily on the lack of the weapon and ignored the forensics as to whether a fall could cause that much damage.

This is all speculation on my part: The possible strangulation as a contributing cause of her death gave the prosecution a pass on producing the weapon.  I saw the cause of death as she bled to death because of her wounds.  So negligent homicide since he may have tried to strangle her and he/she banged her head enough to cause profuse bleeding?  And he didn't call for help until it was too late? 

[Maire]

Molly B I agree with your theory. Having seen the documentary it never presented the strangulation evidence in any detail. It relied on  solely on the “blowpoke” idea. 

[Snazzy Daisy]

What if the “antlers” that caused the head wounds? Larry said there’s supposed to be 2 deers, so 1 was missing.

[Whimsy]

On 5/19/2022 at 2:51 PM, Kirsty said:

I didn't much care for it either.

Up to this episode, I found the show really gripping. I suppose that's because it posed the questions: Is Michael guilty? When will Kathleen discover his relationships with men? What really happened? How will his trial go? Will his kids ever see through him? And I could kind of root for the kids and hope that they came to accept the truth.

This episode posed none of those questions. It followed Michael in jail and Sophie in France, two characters I don't enjoy spending time with. (Why would I care how the killer gets along in prison?) It dropped the members of Kathleen's family who believe that Michael is guilty, meaning all the characters in the episode were on Michael's side and there was no one who saw through his bullshit.

At the end, did their retired neighbour realise that he knew what caused the lacerations on Kathleen's scalp? At first I thought it was something he had purchased from the Petersons sale. Now I'm wondering if the Petersons had birds in their attic instead of bats.

I agree. This episode felt like it was trying hard to make us feel sympathy for Michael. Sorry. Nope. Never going to happen. I also cannot understand for the life of me how he keeps getting people to fall in love with him or even just TOUCH him(hook-ups). I find nothing attractive about that man and he’s also a total blow-hard in love with his own voice. I also firmly believe he killed Kathleen. 
 

I also agree with @poeticlicensed who said those kids were obnoxious from the beginning and they’re privileged without thinking they are. 
 

[SunnyBeBe]

I’m late to this series.  I wasn’t going to watch, since I have read and seen so much about the case over the years.  I practice law in Raleigh (next door to Durham) and have appeared in Durham county court occasionally over the years and during the time this case was being litigated.  What has impressed me with this series is the excellent casting of the legal teams. Omg, they got that right.  I think the portrayal of Jim Hardin may be the best. 
 

While I was aware of the French documentary, I was not aware of the role Sophie had. I think that actress did an excellent job in this episode. 
 

I am also impressed with the southern accents.  Most projects struggle with this.  Actors often try too hard and it fails. It’s one of my pet peeves.  NC accents are particularly challenging, imo, because they differ greatly from traditionally known accents from the deeper south.  
 

I look forward to watching the remaining episodes.  Apparently, it was popular with viewers on these boards. 

Edited May 31, 2022 by SunnyBeBe

[SoMuchTV]

On 5/31/2022 at 9:40 AM, SunnyBeBe said:

I am also impressed with the southern accents.  Most projects struggle with this.  Actors often try too hard and it fails. It’s one of my pet peeves.  NC accents are particularly challenging, imo, because they differ greatly from traditionally known accents from the deeper south.  

Where I live is NC-adjacent, and I've watched all the episodes and didn't notice any accents.  So I guess they're doing it right :)

[SunnyBeBe]

43 minutes ago, SoMuchTV said:

Where I live is NC-adjacent, and I've watched all the episodes and didn't notice any accents.  So I guess they're doing it right :)

Freda Black had  a pretty pronounced accent.  I think the actress got it right.  

[circumvent]

On 5/20/2022 at 1:58 PM, poeticlicensed said:

I am not liking the POV of the documentary makers as I dont think it is really adding to the story. But I do think the prosecution didn't have a slam dunk. Honestly they were terrible at building a case so they appealed to the emotion of the jury. My brother in law is a defense attorney and he tells me that honestly those air tight cases with indisputable forensics and witness testimony are rare but at least the prosecution should give you a plausible theory and some evidence to back it up. The prosecutors said hey he's got got dick pics it must be murder. In short they did a shitty job. But IMO the jury wanted to convict period. 

Absolutely. There is no way that the prosecutors made the case BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT. No way. The whole case was loaded with doubts, that's what made the story. 

On 5/21/2022 at 12:21 PM, MollyB said:

This is all speculation on my part: The possible strangulation as a contributing cause of her death gave the prosecution a pass on producing the weapon.  I saw the cause of death as she bled to death because of her wounds.  So negligent homicide since he may have tried to strangle her and he/she banged her head enough to cause profuse bleeding?  And he didn't call for help until it was too late? 

This is all possible but it also raises questions, leading to DOUBT, so he shouldn't have been convicted. I do think the jury was biased against him, and the porn and bisexuality played a part in it. It was early 2000's in the American South. I watched the documentary and maybe the french crew didn't capture enough of the homophobia in display. The woman prosecutor was specially disgusted - and disgusting - the type of zealot that will point out  the "digressions against god" at any and all statements she made.

On 5/26/2022 at 5:28 PM, Whimsy said:

Never going to happen. I also cannot understand for the life of me how he keeps getting people to fall in love with him or even just TOUCH him(hook-ups). I find nothing attractive about that man and he’s also a total blow-hard in love with his own voice.

Maybe that's why they got Colin Firth to play him. The real Michael is disgusting and totally unlikable in the documentary - maybe he is different in person, I am judging what I saw - but it is easier to sympathize with someone that makes our brain respond in a different way. It is a trick, an actor being as disgusting as the Michael in the documentary (which is, for all we know, how Michael is), would turn the audience off. Good production trick right there.

Another thing: when the French audience watched the documentary and was elated, I was scratching my head thinking that I watched a completely different thing. I found it absolutely boring, fast forward through most of Michael's monologues and a bunch of other stuff

[Anela]

I read that the editor wasn’t happy about being a character in this series.  She should have expected it, given that she inserted herself into his life, instead of just doing her job.  

[Zima]

On 5/20/2022 at 10:07 AM, poeticlicensed said:

I dont know about the kids IRL, but I find them all unlikable. I thought they were unlikable before Kathleen was killed. A bunch of privileged kids who don't think they are privileged. 

I'm going into this show totally blind. Never heard of this case, or anything about it. I don't find the kids unlikable at all. I think they're all damaged from past trauma, and while they certainly have many privileges, there is obviously something going on with this family (aside from their mother dying in such an awful way) that makes me feel for them. 

Also, since I know nothing about this case, I appreciate the balanced way the show is presenting things. It would not be compelling, nor realistic to show a completely hateful and villainous Michael Peterson IMO. I still think he comes off as a smarmy, egotistical douche, so if that's what he's really like, it's definitely coming across. 

I haven't seen the documentary this is based on, so I find all the banter between the crew compelling. Was the documentary really so biased? Interesting. 

[MollyB]

On 6/13/2022 at 11:58 AM, Zima said:

Was the documentary really so biased?

I think it was, not towards his innocence, but against the American justice system.  The film was apparently well received in Europe.  I think the filmmakers went into the project wanting to show the injustice of the justice system and the defense team saw it as a good way to strengthen their case and/or appeal.  

The dynamics of being in front of a camera while you are planning your defense strategy probably had a lot to do with Michael's affect.  He wanted to look good (and innocent) but I think he overplayed it.  He seems to write the movie as he talks.

Odd note:  I had never heard of this "bestselling author" before and I read a lot.  So I checked Amazon books and found his work (none of which I've every heard of or read) and found a book he wrote in 2015 about his father's death and how he ran from Denver to Strasburg to be with his dying father.  Very moving.  Except, the forward that the author lays out about himself has him coaching Little League, has two sons not named Clayton and Todd and a wife Megan.  He also has two brothers and a sister.  No mention of his NC troubles, the trial and his avowed innocence in a murder.  Either this is a fiction/novel or there is a different Michael Peterson who also writes.  If that is the case, the real author should contact Amazon to stop crediting Michael Peterson the convicted murderer and prevent the purchaser from being directed to his link.

[AZChristian]

21 minutes ago, MollyB said:

Either this is a fiction/novel or there is a different Michael Peterson who also writes.  If that is the case, the real author should contact Amazon to stop crediting Michael Peterson the convicted murderer and prevent the purchaser from being directed to his link.

That IS weird.  

The (in)famous Michael Peterson's father died in Nevada, so it must be fiction.  

[peachmangosteen]

That must be another author. The Michael Peterson that's a murderer wrote 3 books that are 'around his experiences during the Vietnamese conflict,' according to Wikipedia. 

[AZChristian]

1 hour ago, peachmangosteen said:

That must be another author. The Michael Peterson that's a murderer wrote 3 books that are 'around his experiences during the Vietnamese conflict,' according to Wikipedia. 

The top line of the Wikipedia home page states, "Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit."

I use it a lot for general info, but always with the realization that it's not the most factual resource.  I believe that you are correct in this case, though. 

Michael Peterson himself identifies as having written 8 books, and lists them in "Beyond the Staircase."  The book that @MollyB refers to above is called "Barely Breathing: A Memoir."  It is not listed as one of the books that "our" Michael Peterson wrote, but if you click on the book on Amazon, it takes you to a list that includes (but is not limited to) the Michael Peterson we are discussing. 

There's another author named Michael L. Peterson who, in fact, is more likely to be the author of "Barely Breathing."  He should contact Amazon to complain about the link.

[MollyB]

16 hours ago, AZChristian said:

There's another author named Michael L. Peterson who, in fact, is more likely to be the author of "Barely Breathing."  He should contact Amazon to complain about the link.

I couldn't let this go so I googled more books.  One site came up with 77 books by Michael Peterson!  There are several genres, including science fiction and religious subjects, so yeah, I think there's more than one writer with the name.  "Barely Breathing: A Memoir" is published by a Christian publishing house, so I am positive it was not written by 'Staircase' MP.  lol.  Pisses me off that he dines out on someone else's work.

[peachmangosteen]

5 hours ago, MollyB said:

Pisses me off that he dines out on someone else's work.

What does this mean?

[MollyB]

18 hours ago, peachmangosteen said:

23 hours ago, MollyB said:

Pisses me off that he dines out on someone else's work.

What does this mean?

Being adjacent to someone else's celebrity or accomplishments.  You get invited to dinners to share your up close and personal experiences with someone who is famous. 

I'm using it here because I doubt that he would correct anyone who mistook him for the real author of a book.  He would just enjoy the party until someone figured out he wasn't the author they thought he was.  So he is getting undeserved credit.  I'm sure he would chuckle and shake his head and pour some more wine when the mistake is revealed, and the hosts would love him.  "Oh, silly us, we had the wrong Michael Peterson! More wine, please."

[MicheleinPhilly]

I'm only just now watching this series and this was the first episode that really didn't work for me. While I've found all of the rest to be really compelling, this was just a bore. I don't care about the documentarians and their stupid squabbles and I certainly don't need to see some grand love story play out between Sophie and Michael. 🙄

Rather than presenting any real drama or conflict, this episode simply confirmed what I've always thought of MP since first seeing the documentary years ago - he's a smarmy, egocentric, lazy, murderous, gold digger. 

And I don't like to speak ill of the kids as they are innocents in all of this but this REALLY isn't doing them any favors either. It's been so long since I've watched the documentary, I can't recall if they presented as this spoiled rotten bunch. 🤷‍♀️

[iMonrey]

I, too, am late to this party. So far I have found the series to be a narrative mess with all the time jumping and the different perspectives. I am well aware of the case and this series is chock full of scenes that are nothing but pure speculation. I get that there's such a thing as dramatic license but this is based on a true story - a murder - and some of it makes me uncomfortable.

As for this particular episode I found it dreary and tedious. Way too many scenes of people arguing in French over and over again about the same thing. I get the motivation for including the story about the documentary and the people who made it, but it sort of feels like changing the channel to a different show every time it cuts to them, especially now that they are all back in France. 

I also feel like there is too much of the children that isn't really informing the main mystery. Again, these scenes are all pure speculation, depicting conversations we have no way of knowing ever took place.