S01.E06: Red in Tooth and Claw

[peachmangosteen]

Airs May 26th.

[Ellaria]

I understand that this HBO series is a dramatization of the actual events but some of the storytelling choices seem unnecessary. Maybe I am misinformed but I've not found anything to suggest that Sophie was involved in the "investigation" (for lack of a better word) of the owl theory. Did she actually call Caitlin and ask that she exhume her mother's body? Did she meet with Deborah Radisch? If not, why create the scenes? Just to give Juliette Binoche something to do?

The owl theory is interesting on its own, in part because Michael's neighbor, Larry, put it forth in 2008/2009. It didn't need embellishments.

Although I've seen the documentary, the non-linear storytelling is often hard to follow. The casual reference to the Thanksgiving incident in an earlier episode was finally addressed in this episode. Did this happen? If not, why include it? To show us that Kathleen was angry and demanded a different (better) Christmas celebration...one that she didn't live to see?

Alternatively, I hope the show revisits the suggestion that Michael wanted to split up Margaret and Martha, if it is true.

Overall, the last two episodes have been disappointing.

[peachmangosteen]

16 minutes ago, Ellaria Sand said:

Just to give Juliette Binoche something to do?

I think that's it. I mean, you don't cast Juliette Binoche to play a nothing character so they had to invent things, I guess. I don't know anything about the real case so I wasn't sure if her character was more fact than fiction or not but the fact that the documentary filmmaker has such an issue with the way he and she were portrayed I'm assuming it's not very accurate.

[Ellaria]

4 minutes ago, peachmangosteen said:

I think that's it. I mean, you don't cast Juliette Binoche to play a nothing character so they had to invent things, I guess. I don't know anything about the real case so I wasn't sure if her character was more fact than fiction or not but the fact that the documentary filmmaker has such an issue with the way he and she were portrayed I'm assuming it's not very accurate.

We have the HBO dramatization which, as we know, isn't completely factual. We have the documentary which didn't present the events in an unbiased way. And that's fine; it's two different approaches to this weird story.

However, there are many aspects of this story that I'd like to see addressed instead of Todd and Clayton's wild party and Michael's prison drama. 

[peachmangosteen]

I think it wants to be more of a family drama than anything but it's not working for me. There's somehow too much and yet not enough of the family.

[poeticlicensed]

Wow Michael Peterson always manages to land on his feet, doesn't he? First he finds a sugar mama Kathleen to support he and his kids and ends up finding another sugar mama, Sophie, an acclaimed filmmaker to take care of him. Its truly bizarre

[Kiddvideo]

Toni Collette’s portrayal is really turning me off, and normally I enjoy her performances. Everything she says is a sigh. I get it: Kathleen is overwhelmed, tired, stressed, and medicating. I have to skip through her death scenes. I’m afraid I’ll tear a retina rolling my eyes.

I don’t remember hearing anything about Kathleen’s death or the trial and appeals, so I have novelty going for me.

This episode: They didn’t show Sophie’s entire conversation, but I felt if she’d mentioned the coroner wanted to look at the head wounds as a possible owl attack rather than positioning it as a way to free her father, she might’ve gotten the daughter to go along with the exhumation. Also, I can’t figure out why the writers pointed out that one of the deer was missing if the deer were only a plot device to get her to invade the owl’s territory. I thought the antlers were going to be the murder weapon. (No way did he beat her with that fireplace tool and not cause a skull fracture.)

Edited May 27, 2022 by Kiddvideo

[Kirsty]

Far too much product placement in this episode with the beer and the Coke. There seemed to be a can of Coke in every scene.

Do owls attack people? I didn't know that was a thing. There was no one in this episode to refute the owl theory or even to pick holes in it. Not even the medical examiner did so. So the show basically sold the theory. But didn't Kathleen also have damage to the cartilage in her neck that suggested she had been strangled?

Also, if the owl in the theory didn't emerge from the attic, then why on earth is the show paying so much attention to whatever is in the Peterson's attic? I have to conclude that it's symbolism. The worst kind of shitty, high school essay symbolism. Spare me!

The stuff about the German girls' past is interesting, though. And I'm still interested in the kids generally, before and after Kathleen's death.

[Snazzy Daisy]

Wow, a blatant product placement by Coke! Does Sophie really drink Coke that often?

Larry seems like a nice man and caring neighbour, but sorry man, I don’t buy into his owl theory. After being attacked by an owl, why would Kathleen want to go upstairs? She would have gone into the kitchen or downstair’s bathroom for some towels to stop the bleeding while screaming for Michael etc.

Am not really interested in Sophie. I can’t believe she’s falling in love with Michael and willing to leave her son in Paris for him. WHY? Her wigs are so distracting but they’re a good indicator to distinguish between 2007 and 2017.

I wish we won’t have to see more of Peterson kids in the next 2 episodes. Could care less about them.

Having to watch the 3rd version of Kathleen’s death, that’s so overwhelming. This will be the last version right, no more of it?

I really want to know what’s the real story behind the decorative white reindeers.

In one of the prison’s scene, I really thought that Michael and Big Ray will end up kissing in the supply closet. Ahhh, damn it show!

Edited May 27, 2022 by SnazzyDaisy

[debraran]

There was controversy about these episodes from the people who made the documentary. They said they didn't edit evidence to make him look more innocent and Sophie didn't have an affair with him until after he was out and it was over before the documentary aired. Poetic license there I suppose but if they did alter other things maybe they shouldn't have been so trusting.

Is the original documentary worth watching? I admit I love Colin Firth and wanted to see him in this. Not his most likable character but I don't know if I'd like to see the other. The story is open-ended, maybe the truth will never be known, but I don't care enough I think to see it twice unless it's really good.

[poeticlicensed]

Wrt the owl theory, my friends in criminology tell me Occams Razor generally applies to most crimes, that is that the simplest explanation is likely what happened and it isn't that an owl swooped down and attacked Kathleen and then she fell in the stairs. 

[Ellaria]

12 minutes ago, debraran said:

Is the original documentary worth watching? I admit I love Colin Firth and wanted to see him in this. Not his most likable character but I don't know if I'd like to see the other. The story is open-ended, maybe the truth will never be known, but I don't care enough I think to see it twice unless it's really good.

Yes - I think that the documentary is worth watching. It has an inherent bias but the actual people involved in this story are interesting and infuriating. I’m disappointed in the dramatization because I don’t think it is adding to the story in a meaningful way.

There is likely only one living person that knows the truth about what happened that night. He is too much of a narcissist to ever tell the complete truth.

[lurkerbee]

2 hours ago, SnazzyDaisy said:

Wow, a blatant product placement by Coke! Does Sophie really drink Coke that often?

Larry seems like a nice man and caring neighbour, but sorry man, I don’t buy into his owl theory. After being attacked by an owl, why would Kathleen want to go upstairs? She would have gone into the kitchen or downstair’s bathroom for some towels to stop the bleeding while screaming for Michael etc.

Am not really interested in Sophie. I can’t believe she’s falling in love with Michael and willing to leave her son in Paris for him. WHY? Her wigs are so distracting but they’re a good indicator to distinguish between 2007 and 2017.

I’m not interested in her either. David Rudolf said she was never in the room when he met with Michael, so there was some artistic license in this episode.

Here’s a very recent interview with Larry Pollard. He was also interviewed on the show’s HBO Max podcast for this episode.

[AZChristian]

IMHO, if an owl had attacked Cathleen and done that level of damage, there would be LOTS of owl feathers inside the house.  I believe that she had one MICROSCOPIC portion of a feather in her hair . . . which she likely picked up while sitting in the recliner out by the pool.

And why would she have tried to go upstairs to get towels?  There were towels in the kitchen (adjacent to the staircase), and a house that big undoubtedly had a powder room on the first floor.

Pardon the pun, but that owl theory just isn't going to fly.

[bilgistic]

6 hours ago, debraran said:

Is the original documentary worth watching? I admit I love Colin Firth and wanted to see him in this. Not his most likable character but I don't know if I'd like to see the other. The story is open-ended, maybe the truth will never be known, but I don't care enough I think to see it twice unless it's really good.

I watched the whole documentary when the last episodes came out on Netflix, which Google tells me was in 2018, but what even is time anymore.

What we're not seeing the full extent of, not that I'd recommend it, is what felt like hours upon hours of Michael sitting around pontificating with a pipe in his mouth. He's such a narcissistic, self-important windbag.

This dramatization is pretty accurately portraying how it seemed like the David Rudolf and his team were always at the Peterson house forever. All the family stuff the kids and with Kathleen (obviously) and her family—that's all dramatized. Based on real events, but still. The documentary was pretty solidly about the case, because Michael.

I learned more in the documentary about the first woman he killed, I mean, the "family friend" in Germany who "fell down the stairs when she had an aneurysm." I feel like they've glossed over it in the drama. I seem to remember it playing a bigger part in the case because of the "coincidence." Like it was a deciding factor for some of the jurors? But I could be conflating my feelings with my memory.

[poeticlicensed]

9 hours ago, AZChristian said:

IMHO, if an owl had attacked Cathleen and done that level of damage, there would be LOTS of owl feathers inside the house.  I believe that she had one MICROSCOPIC portion of a feather in her hair . . . which she likely picked up while sitting in the recliner out by the pool.

And why would she have tried to go upstairs to get towels?  There were towels in the kitchen (adjacent to the staircase), and a house that big undoubtedly had a powder room on the first floor.

Pardon the pun, but that owl theory just isn't going to fly.

Seriously. The times where I have sustained an injury at home i headed to the closest sink. 

[MollyB]

11 hours ago, bilgistic said:

What we're not seeing the full extent of, not that I'd recommend it, is what felt like hours upon hours of Michael sitting around pontificating with a pipe in his mouth. He's such a narcissistic, self-important windbag.

!this.  When I first watched the documentary I wondered why an entire family would allow a film crew into their house and life to document what may have and did turn out to be his conviction for murder.  At first I thought the film makers were just biased (on American Justice) and were crusading to bring it down.  But then, the pipe smoking smug bastard convinced me that he probably begged them to do the documentary and basked in the attention he got.  HIS belief in the justice system was mainly you can murder and not be prosecuted if you talk a good story (long enough to bore everybody into a stupor) and twist the system.  Sorry Michael, your 'intellect' will not set you free.

20 hours ago, SnazzyDaisy said:

Am not really interested in Sophie.

Yeah, it seems they are punching up her story for a romantic/sympathy angle and it just doesn't work for me because a) I don't think this lying murderer deserves another chance at a 'soul mate' and b) her character is just boring and pushy at the same time and I don't have any sympathy for her and her lousy marriage.  Also, Miss Way Too Upset: don't bring a can of Coke to a very expensive computer.  Next we will see her do a spit take onto the keyboard when she discovers yet another clue to his innocence.

13 hours ago, AZChristian said:

IMHO, if an owl had attacked Cathleen and done that level of damage, there would be LOTS of owl feathers inside the house.  I believe that she had one MICROSCOPIC portion of a feather in her hair . . . which she likely picked up while sitting in the recliner out by the pool.

Wow, maybe the owl attacked her and then she fell onto the reindeer.  Duh.  What bothers me most in both the documentary and this mockumentary is that whenever anyone finds what they perceive as new evidence they don't call the police or DA to have it collected properly or investigated by the professionals who do that kind of work.  Instead, they run amok and do their own investigations and then get pissed when the authorities don't smack their foreheads and go, "oh, you're right! We'll free him right now".  

[AZChristian]

55 minutes ago, MollyB said:

Wow, maybe the owl attacked her and then she fell onto the reindeer.  Duh.  

WHY DIDN'T I THINK OF THAT????  IT'S SO OBVIOUS.  😂

[Bobcatkitten]

I was very confused by the timeline in the episode. It starts with Mike clearly out of prison and discussing an Alford plea but then he's back in prison and lost his appeal. Then back to the alford plea, which he refused. Terrible editing. 

[peachmangosteen]

15 minutes ago, Bobcatkitten said:

I was very confused by the timeline in the episode. It starts with Mike clearly out of prison and discussing an Alford plea but then he's back in prison and lost his appeal. Then back to the alford plea, which he refused. Terrible editing. 

They put up the year at the beginning of each set of scenes to differentiate them, I believe. But I absolutely hate this style of non-linear storytelling. It's needlessly confusing.

[Stiggs]

I flipped to watching the documentary on Netflix after watching this episode and was a little freaked out by how well Colin Firth has the voice down, good lord. 
I’m not sure of the purpose or the end game with this show. I feel like the earlier episodes were better put together, though I am fascinated by the dynamic of all the kids. I don’t mind those parts, and wow if it’s true that he tried to give one of the “German” sisters away. 
I still can’t believe the bored  and his owl theory got more air time. 🙄

[Ellaria]

37 minutes ago, peachmangosteen said:

I absolutely hate this style of non-linear storytelling. It's needlessly confusing.

It is needlessly confusing. This is a story that is still shrouded in mystery and the non-linear storytelling makes it worse. There are ways to use that tactic to emphasize certain elements of a story but this isn’t it.

23 minutes ago, Stiggs said:

I’m not sure of the purpose or the end game with this show. I feel like the earlier episodes were better put together

That’s my issue as well. I’ve watched the documentary and read a lot about this case. When I heard that HBO was doing a series on this subject, I wondered what they could add that would enhance it. So far, I don’t think that they’ve been successful. The acting is great but I don’t have much else positive to say.

Maybe the final two episodes will surprise me. 

[debraran]

I didn't see the netflix show but do they really think being bisexual was a reason to kill her? Whether she knew or not, suspected or not, there didn't seem to be any evidence on computers or conversations, I don't see that kind of anger unless he felt she'd tell everyone. Even then...but he was a narcissistic man.

[AZChristian]

4 hours ago, debraran said:

I didn't see the netflix show but do they really think being bisexual was a reason to kill her? Whether she knew or not, suspected or not, there didn't seem to be any evidence on computers or conversations, I don't see that kind of anger unless he felt she'd tell everyone. Even then...but he was a narcissistic man.

I am of the opinion that - more than the issue of bisexuality - she "went off" on him because of the time and money he was spending to pursue his personal interests.  She was working while he puffed his pipe and waxed philosophical about local issues (even running for office, which costs money).  Their credit cards were maxed out and several of their kids (only one of whom was hers) were still in college - for which she was paying.  They were withdrawing money from her retirement fund just to cover their expenses.  And she was about to lose her job.

If I were her, I'd have probably gone off on him too if/when I saw his e-mails and websites involving any outside relationship.  Those websites are NOT free, and she realized that SHE was paying for them, and all of his and his kids' expenses.  I think she lost her temper, not realizing that his response would be to physically attack her and then kill her when he realized she would have him arrested and destroy his "reputation" if he didn't.

If a person is on the edge of anxiety over a number of matters (as I think Kathleen was), it doesn't take much to push them over that edge and angrily confront the cause of a lot of that anxiety (Michael).

Edited May 30, 2022 by AZChristian
Grammar

[Ellaria]

4 hours ago, debraran said:

I didn't see the netflix show but do they really think being bisexual was a reason to kill her? Whether she knew or not, suspected or not, there didn't seem to be any evidence on computers or conversations, I don't see that kind of anger unless he felt she'd tell everyone. Even then...but he was a narcissistic man.

40 minutes ago, AZChristian said:

I am of the opinion that - more than the issue of bisexuality - she "went off" on him because of the time and money he was spending to pursue his personal interests.  She was working while he puffed his pipe and waxed philosophical about local issues (even running for office, which costs money).  Their credit cards were maxed out and several of their kids (only one of whom was hers) were still in college - for which she was paying.  They were withdrawing money from her retirement fund just to cover their expenses.  And she was about to lose her job.

So much of this case is shrouded in mystery or dependent on Michael’s recollection of things that it’s difficult to formulate motive.

The one thing that the show does well is demonstrate the type of stress that Kathleen may have felt: financial issues, possible loss of job, Clayton’s troubles. Again, assuming that the common telling of the story is true, she likely saw the gay porn/escort emails, etc on his computer. Then she confronted him about all of it. He flies into a rage and kills her…not necessarily because she found the gay porn but because his comfy lifestyle is about to come to an end.

Edited May 30, 2022 by Ellaria Sand

[debraran]

Oh I see, I didn't realize how precarious the finances were but that makes sense. Too bad she couldn't have held it in and told him when near others or with others in home. Too bad cameras in home weren't a big thing but it does seem like his comfy life was coming to an end. Do we know from others that she seemed resentful or tired or having issues before? Hard to know what's poetic license and what's real.

Did she have anything on her computer or any hints of discomfort they haven't gotten to yet on HBO?

[MollyB]

4 hours ago, debraran said:

Whether she knew or not, suspected or not, there didn't seem to be any evidence on computers or conversations,

This confused me when the computer was taken in the initial search.  A printout was left on the desk of something pertaining to sex sites or emails to "send him a message" (as the defense attorney said), but we never hear that they pinned down the time when certain sites or folders or emails were seen.  Wouldn't the computer itself have a history with times to show when someone was on it and what that someone was looking at?  

46 minutes ago, Ellaria Sand said:

So much of this case is shrouded in mystery or dependent on Michael’s recollection of things that it’s difficult to formulate motive.

And there you have it.  [Though I might change recollection to fabrication.]  He's the only witness.  Were they really at the pool and she left him there so he couldn't hear her screams when she fell? Or were they in the kitchen and she confronted him with the monetary problems (maybe laughed at his piddling $10,00 contribution) and the sexual encounters?   Was she really okay with his bisexuality?  He says she knew and had no problem because it wasn't really cheating on her.  We see he believes that to be true, but did she feel the same way?  

[debraran]

I know when someone read my emails I could tell from cookies etc. when it happened. Why would she suddenly go on his computer, did they share it? Did he leave his sites up? Did she never see a phone bill? That is how many guys are caught. Sure there are work calls but ones at 3 am etc set off some questions in spouses. IDK but someone like him will take it to his grave. If Scott Peterson who killed his wife in CT didn't kill himself he would have too.

And maybe it was just an accident, that's what is hard. With OJ, you knew what happened, no accident, but this did have grey areas.

[AZChristian]

1 hour ago, debraran said:

Why would she suddenly go on his computer, did they share it?

I believe she used his computer - which seemed to have been set up permanently in his office (so he could write) - because she needed to just quickly log into her work e-mail to check details for an early meeting the following day.  If she was opening a browser window, it may have reverted to whatever he had open when he closed it.  When I log in every morning to my computer and open Chrome, the tabs across the top are for my e-mail, my calendar, Facebook, and a couple of websites that I access daily.  She may have opened his browser, saw the tab for the male meet-up site (complete with nude pictures), and popped over to his e-mail and saw the notes back and forth between Michael and Brad.  BOOM.  

[Sweet-tea]

I wish they wouldn't jump around so much with timeline. It's confusing me. 

How can he take a plea after he's already been convicted and is serving time?

I don't think it was an owl. 

[MollyB]

I got a chuckle at Michael not wanting to admit he killed her.  I worked in a DA office for many years, and I found the general public didn't always understand the law.  This is why you should never be your own lawyer.  An Alford plea sounds as if you are not guilty, but that's not what it says.  You are pleading guilty to avoid a trial that will most likely result in a guilty verdict because the evidence is so compelling.  It doesn't confirm innocence or guilt.  As with most plea bargaining, you will receive a lesser sentence and may even have the charges reduced.  For me, it just underlined what a pompous fool Michael was to refuse to admit he was guilty of anything. 

[Sweet-tea]

On 5/30/2022 at 9:53 AM, Ellaria Sand said:

So much of this case is shrouded in mystery or dependent on Michael’s recollection of things that it’s difficult to formulate motive.

The one thing that the show does well is demonstrate the type of stress that Kathleen may have felt: financial issues, possible loss of job, Clayton’s troubles. Again, assuming that the common telling of the story is true, she likely saw the gay porn/escort emails, etc on his computer. Then she confronted him about all of it. He flies into a rage and kills her…not necessarily because she found the gay porn but because his comfy lifestyle is about to come to an end.

Where was the part about her possibly losing her job? I must have missed it. She did seem stressed out all the time, but I didn’t realize she was worried about losing her job. Why was she going to be let go?

Michael is a scum bag but it’s also hard for me to like Kathleen the way she’s portrayed in this series. Toni Collette’s performance is off-putting. I wish they had shown a little more of Kathleen’s softer side. The exchange with her sister just made her look worse. 

I don’t care about Sophie or her relationship with Michael, so those scenes aren’t interesting to me. Is the real Sophie as lovely as Juliette Binoche? Normally the actors are better looking so I’m wondering but too lazy to research it. 

Edited June 5, 2022 by Sweet-tea

[debraran]

2 hours ago, Sweet-tea said:

Where was the part about her possibly losing her job? I must have missed it. She did seem stressed out all the time, but I didn’t realize she was worried about losing her job. Why was she going to be let go?

Michael is a scum bag but it’s also hard for me to like Kathleen the way she’s portrayed in this series. Toni Collette’s performance is off-putting. I wish they had shown a little more of Kathleen’s softer side. The exchange with her sister just made her look worse. 

I don’t care about Sophie or her relationship with Michael, so those scenes aren’t interesting to me. Is the real Sophie as lovely as Juliette Binoche? Normally the actors are better looking so I’m wondering but too lazy to research it. 

https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cheatsheet.com%2Fentertainment%2Fthe-staircase-juliette-binoche-sophie-brunet-french-editor-fell-love-michael-peterson.html%2F&psig=AOvVaw0zK7jk6Nn8cetBY1VjkFOb&ust=1654525143688000&source=images&cd=vfe&ved=0CAwQjRxqFwoTCMjWlM7AlvgCFQAAAAAdAAAAABAI

I think closer than Colin to Michael.

[circumvent]

On 5/26/2022 at 5:53 PM, Ellaria Sand said:

Just to give Juliette Binoche something to do?

As far as I am concerned, Juliette Binoche can just stand there and let me look at her. The woman is just so gorgeous, getting better as she ages.

On 5/27/2022 at 3:50 PM, SnazzyDaisy said:

I don’t buy into his owl theory. After being attacked by an owl, why would Kathleen want to go upstairs? She would have gone into the kitchen or downstair’s bathroom for some towels to stop the bleeding while screaming for Michael etc.

Apparently it is possible and I guess the paper clips of cases Larry was showing are real but I agree that it is unlikely in this case. Not only she would have to be very quiet - I would be screaming my lungs out - I don't remember anything in the documentary about blood on the front door or near the door, or anything about micro feathers. If that was in evidence, then the fact that Michael got convicted is even more absurd. There is no theory that leads to him being the one who killed her. Then he walked outside? dropped some blood around and went back inside? The defense would make it very easy to create doubt on the jury.

On 5/27/2022 at 5:39 PM, debraran said:

Is the original documentary worth watching? I

No. As a complement and as the actual stuff happening - like the only times they show Michael in prison the place is very different, only visits behind glasses - and it is boring to the bones. I fast forwarded through a lot of it. Plus, the people are just too unlikable, Michael is disgusting and despicable. listening to him physically hurts.

On 5/28/2022 at 12:26 AM, bilgistic said:

I seem to remember it playing a bigger part in the case because of the "coincidence." Like it was a deciding factor for some of the jurors? But I could be conflating my feelings with my memory.

The deciding factor to the jury, according to real David, was the blood stain inside Michael's shorts, which was shown to have been another one of the state's fake experiments. The exhumation of the body was the big drama because the state decided to drive the corpse from Texas to make sure the ME reached the conclusion they wanted. Pure prosecutorial malpractice, the goes unchecked. 

On 6/4/2022 at 10:05 AM, Sweet-tea said:

How can he take a plea after he's already been convicted and is serving time?

IT will be explained in the next episodes. It has nothing to do directly with him

Another detail that might be lost on people: It is mentioned that Michael is going to Paris. I don't know if he ever does go but I know for a fact that ex-felons, in most states (at least if they are poor/minority) lose their passports. It is one more of the forever punishment/never rehabilitation policies of our "justice" system

[Anela]

They were outside, drinking, before she died. That feather could have been caught in her hair, that way. 

I also don't know how people just fall for this guy, and I still don't understand how this woman didn't expect to be a part of the show. They were planning on moving in together, she was looking at houses for them in France. 

[iMonrey]

I am and have always been a strong proponent of the owl theory. It checks every box when explaining Kathleen's injuries unlike the prosecution's case. I thought this episode did an excellent job showing how the owl talons matched the claw marks on Kathleen's scalp perfectly and explains why there were no skull fractures despite prosecution claims she was bludgeoned. Dateline did a follow up on this case and included surveillance camera footage of an owl dive bombing someone's head as they walked through a nearby park. The neighbor correctly articulated how the owls are territorial and aggressive during nesting season.

People who thought there was "too much blood" apparently aren't familiar with scalp injuries. Having experienced one first hand I can tell you even the smallest cut to the scalp will result in projectile blood spurting like something out of a horror movie. The extent of cuts on Kathleen's scalp would have been catastrophic in that regard.

Quote

But didn't Kathleen also have damage to the cartilage in her neck that suggested she had been strangled?

That could have been the result from the fall down the stairs though.

Quote

After being attacked by an owl, why would Kathleen want to go upstairs? She would have gone into the kitchen or downstair’s bathroom for some towels to stop the bleeding while screaming for Michael etc.

You have to consider the context. This wasn't a little paper cut this was a fatal injury, she was undoubtably in shock, in a panic, and had also been drinking. There's no reasonable expectation for how she would react or behave, her first instinct may have been to head for the nearest medicine cabin, or else in her mania she may have forgotten Michael was out by the pool and headed upstairs looking for him.

Quote

They were outside, drinking, before she died. That feather could have been caught in her hair, that way. 

They didn't just find owl feathers on her sweater or something - they were entangled in the hairs she was clutching in her hand, having pulled them out of her own head. That's not just a coincidence. 

I get that Michael was an awful person and so many things seem suspicious, and I think a lot of people just jump to the conclusion that he MUST have killed Kathleen because gosh, he's awful. But none of the prosecution's theories really add up the way the owl theory does.

Thus far, the show has not mentioned the fact that Michael worked as a columnist at the local paper where he was very critical of the local police and the local DA, who eventually prosecuted him. He was on their shit list when Kathleen died, they were gunning for him.