The Staircase

[Meredith Quill]

Your Media Topic!

[Meredith Quill]

Discuss Here!

[AZChristian]

We just binge-watched the whole series.  I've always been obsessed with it.  It did not change my opinions . . . which are:

• Duane Deaver is an idiot and should be in prison.
• Judge Orlando Hudson made a very intelligent summary at the end of the last episode, and I agree with him completely.
• My heart broke for Caitlin . . . who lost not just her mother, but her entire family.

Having said that:

• I believe that Michael Peterson killed Kathleen.  I have suspicions about whether he killed Elizabeth Ratliff, and am not as convinced that he killed her as I am convinced that he killed Kathleen.

[Valmarmar]

18 hours ago, AZChristian said:

We just binge-watched the whole series.  I've always been obsessed with it.  It did not change my opinions . . . which are:

• Duane Deaver is an idiot and should be in prison.
• Judge Orlando Hudson made a very intelligent summary at the end of the last episode, and I agree with him completely.
• My heart broke for Caitlin . . . who lost not just her mother, but her entire family.

Having said that:

• I believe that Michael Peterson killed Kathleen.  I have suspicions about whether he killed Elizabeth Ratliff, and am not as convinced that he killed her as I am convinced that he killed Kathleen.

Thank you, AZCHRISTIAN !  I totally agree.  Michael Peterson is a narcissist.  I think we are all familiar with the traits that come with that attribute.  He believes his own lies, and thinks he is charming and clever enough to convince everyone else they are true.  I NEVER had a moment's doubt that he was guilty. 

 

I don't understand why they pushed so hard to blame a weapon for the lacerations.  My 88 yr. old mother fell in her little room at an assisted living facility, and tore the back of her head open, making a "U" design with one arm of it longer than the other.  She had about 40 staples, and her head is very small !!  There was not a brain injury or skull fracture.  Blood pooled on the floor by her bed.   My theory is that he CAUSED her fall , and then continued to cause more scalp trauma by hitting her head against the wall, step or doorframe.  We know she could not fight back because of the tox screen report.   They admitted to her weakened condition, as well.

When we were shown exactly how Ratliff's body was found,  the location and amount of blood at the scene,and her scalp lacerations,  I felt chills.  I mean, what are the odds ?  I am in the same place as AZCHRISTIAN, however.  It would take more investigation to prove motive and opportunity.    As for Kathleen, I am convinced he killed her.

Edited June 10, 2018 by Valmarmar
add a completion to sentence.

[AZChristian]

4 hours ago, Valmarmar said:

Thank you, AZCHRISTIAN !  I totally agree.  Michael Peterson is a narcissist.  I think we are all familiar with the traits that come with that attribute.  He believes his own lies, and thinks he is charming and clever enough to convince everyone else they are true.  I NEVER had a moment's doubt that he was guilty.

And how disgusting was it that right up until the end of the series, he - along with his attorneys and family members - was JOKING about Kathleen's death.  Our jaws dropped to the floor a couple of times.  

ETA:  We were also shocked that several years after Kathleen's death, the blood was still on the walls of the staircase.  And Michael and his family and lawyers were just chatting away walking past that area while trying to decide whether to sit in the kitchen or some other room, and what kind of wine did everyone want.  Had someone I love died tragically in a house, I'm not sure I could even stay there . . . much less leave the death scene intact.  I watch lots of true life murder stories, and I've never heard of the authorities requiring that a scene be maintained after the crime scene investigators had completed their work.  It was bizarre in this case that not only was it there, it seemed to not phase anyone who claimed to love Kathleen.

Edited June 10, 2018 by AZChristian

[amazinglybored]

10 hours ago, AZChristian said:

We just binge-watched the whole series.  I've always been obsessed with it.  It did not change my opinions . . . which are:

• Duane Deaver is an idiot and should be in prison.
• Judge Orlando Hudson made a very intelligent summary at the end of the last episode, and I agree with him completely.
• My heart broke for Caitlin . . . who lost not just her mother, but her entire family.

Having said that:

• I believe that Michael Peterson killed Kathleen.  I have suspicions about whether he killed Elizabeth Ratliff, and am not as convinced that he killed her as I am convinced that he killed Kathleen.

 

I agree with this but I’m fairly convinced he killed Elizabeth Ratliff. I would have liked more from Caitlin’s POV.

 

5 hours ago, Valmarmar said:

Thank you, AZCHRISTIAN !  I totally agree.  Michael Peterson is a narcissist.  I think we are all familiar with the traits that come with that attribute.  He believes his own lies, and thinks he is charming and clever enough to convince everyone else they are true.  I NEVER had a moment's doubt that he was guilty. 

 

I don't understand why they pushed so hard to blame a weapon for the lacerations.  My 88 yr. old mother fell in her little room at an assisted living facility, and tore the back of her head open, making a "U" design with one arm of it longer than the other.  She had about 40 staples, and her head is very small !!  There was not a brain injury or skull fracture.  Blood pooled on the floor by her bed.   My theory is that he CAUSED her fall , and then continued to cause more scalp trauma by hitting her head against the wall, step or doorframe.  We know she could not fight back because of the tox screen report.   They admitted to her weakened condition, as well.

When we were shown exactly how Ratliff's body was found,  the location and amount of blood at the scene,and her scalp lacerations,  I felt chills.  I mean, what are the odds ?  I am in the same place as AZCHRISTIAN, however.  It would take more investigation to prove motive and opportunity.    As for Kathleen, I am convinced he caused her death.

 

Their insistance on a weapon and him using it to beat her to death was a serious problem and like so many notable crime stories the police and/or prosecution were less than stellar. It makes so much more sense that he caused the fall or possibly capitalized on her falling by finishing the job.

 

 

God damn was Michael Peterson creepy is his fakeness throughout the entirety of the series.

[Calamity Jane]

A most engaging series to watch - I had never seen the first eight episodes despite a consuming interest in the case at the time of the trial.  Peterson is an odd duck, indeed, but what knocked my socks off was how odd, in many of the same ways, his first wife was.  I felt more empathy for him develop as the series went on, partly because that family's humor is somewhat similar to how my family jokes, but I still view him as off-putting and just off-center somehow.  It seemed to me that the state truly did not meet their burden of proof in the original trial.  Not sure if I'm convinced for sure he did kill Kathleen, although it seems more likely than not, but the alternative theory the defense presented offered what I felt was within reasonable doubt, especially given the prosecution's insistence on the mechanics of her death.  Of course, as always, this represented the film maker's edited version of events, so I would be open to being persuaded either way if definitive proof ever surfaced.  If he did kill her, he has paid a significant price, literally, so at least there's that.  No matter what happened, what a tragedy for that family.  

[Maire]

I saw the original documentary, is there anything new? 

[Calamity Jane]

The five episodes bring us up to 2016 (maybe 2017?) and the final disposition of the case.  We get updates on the various people, although I don't remember hearing what happened to Michael's brother, kind of fascinating in some cases.  Kathleen's sister delivered an epic rant at the last hearing, worth watching just to see that.  What I got most out of those episodes was what an enormous toll Kathleen's death and subsequent events have taken on everyone.

[bilgistic]

Here's your home for discussion about the new Netflix series of The Staircase!

[paulvdb]

4 hours ago, Maire said:

I saw the original documentary, is there anything new? 

I didn't watch this, but based on what I read the first 10 episodes aired in 2004 on Sundance. The last 3 episodes are new.

[AZChristian]

I'm partway through Aphrodite Jones' book on the case.  Michael Peterson is a jerk.

[absnow54]

I just finished episode 4, but read up on Peterson's Wikipedia page during the first episode. This documentary just feels too one sided to me. I really wish they'd explore some of the prosecution's theories instead of immediately calling them ridiculous and unfair, just to give the viewer a chance to make up their own mind. I think Serial and Making a Murderer did a much better job with that. Also, this is something they may go into more depth in a later episode, but I'm surprised they sort of just glossed over him being outed. The narrative seems to be "Affluent White Male Persecuted for No Reason" which seems to be ignoring the elephant in the room of what it would be like to be outed as a bisexual in a high profile case in the early 00's South. 

[UniqueHandle]

I also just finished episode 4. We are going to start episode 5 tonight. My husband, who likes to spoil everything, has read about the case, but I have not.  I love these kinds of shows.

[fountain]

I found the whole defense case development and the process of the actual trial pretty interesting.  I usually see glamorized tv law so it was interesting seeing them reshearsing in jeans and all the home office discussions.  I spent a lot of time wondering how much the legal team would have been paid as it seemed like quite a lot of work.  It would have been great to see the same for the prosecution but they probably declined being filmed.

[larapu2000]

Just finished.  Wow, that family has zero empathy or understanding for their aunts or sister?  Calling her crazy,  saying she can't see herself having a relationship with her sister one day.  I hope for her own sake she changed her mind.

I think he killed Kathleen, because I don't believe him when he says she knew about his bisexuality.   If she knew,  one of her sisters would have known, or a close friend.  She would have confided in somebody about that.  Or, if she knew he had those desires, I don't think she knew he was banging dudes on the side.  

I also found the trial prep interesting.  Especially the part when the lawyer loses his shit over PowerPoint slides!  

I'm annoyed that it only represented one side of the trial, facts, and perspectives of the crime,  however.  I think leaving out the sisters and daughter gave it all less weight.

[zobot81]

I guess I'm the only t.v. maniac who watched this entire series AND The Handmaid's Tale in just four days...

I should wait for more people to catch up before I go blabbing about what I think.  : )

[AZChristian]

10 hours ago, larapu2000 said:

I think he killed Kathleen, because I don't believe him when he says she knew about his bisexuality.   If she knew,  one of her sisters would have known, or a close friend.  She would have confided in somebody about that.  Or, if she knew he had those desires, I don't think she knew he was banging dudes on the side.  

I also found the trial prep interesting.  Especially the part when the lawyer loses his shit over PowerPoint slides!  

Kathleen had a bitter divorce from Caitlyn's father, Fred Atwater.  She thought her life had turned around to an idyllic level with Michael - although there are reports of unexplained bruises and injuries to Kathleen over the years.  I don't think she knew about the active homosexual dalliances.  Given that she had active fears of losing her job and their recent financial difficulties, I could see where she might have found those e-mails on Michael's computer and thought, "I am working my butt off to put his kids through college while he sits here and smokes his stupid pipe and pays for homosexual sex.  I'm DONE."  Then when she tried to leave (which would mean Michael had NO income), he tried to stop her.  The first fall down the stairs may have been an accident in an attempt to block her from leaving the house . . . but the subsequent actions were murder.  

The PowerPoint scene was hysterical.  The "expert" who was running the system didn't know how to move slides to a different order?  PowerPoint (or other presentation program) lesson 1.  I think he was the owner of the company who wanted some screen time, not realizing that he was going to get sworn at and made to look like an idiot.

[zobot81]

On 6/10/2018 at 6:12 PM, Maire said:

I saw the original documentary, is there anything new? 

I think the first eight episodes are original (up to the original verdict), and the last five are new to the documentary's story --- they are devoted to Peterson's life after the trial, and his subsequent appeal.

Totally separate and apart from this...

I don't know if Peterson killed his wife.  The state had a shitty case, and the judge (who ends up presiding over all matters related to Kathleen Peterson's murder) should never have allowed prejudicial evidence into that courtroom.  Namely, Ratliff's death from two decades earlier, as well as Michael Peterson's bisexuality. 

First of all, the state very loosely establishes M. Peterson's motive around pure conjecture --- that somehow Kathleen discovered his bisexuality and philandering on the evening that she died, and her husband...what?  Didn't want her to tell anyone? So that's why he violently bludgeoned her to death?   I find it a huge stretch, given that everyone, even Caitlin (Kathleen's sister), believed the two were very happy and content in their marriage.  Whether or not Kathleen "discovered" her husband's pornography that night, does not seem like a credible reason for her husband to brutally beat her to death.

Secondly, there was simply no evidence to suggest that Ratliff was murdered two decades prior to Kathleen's fall.  The coroner in Germany said she suffered a brain hemorrhage, which caused her to fall down the stairs.  And I'm sorry, but they should never have exhumed her body to re-examine it.  In essence, the prosecution was allowed to retry a case all on their own, without any jury or opportunity for the defense to make its case.  This part of the trial really made me angry.  It was completely out of control to allow the state to present this "evidence" in the courtroom, during Peterson's initial trial.

Lastly, Caitlin is a lunatic.  If you want to find a narcissist, look no further than that lady.  I understand she lost her sister tragically, but her attitude from start to finish was so off-putting, I found her to be the least likable person in the entire documentary.  Her tirade in the courtroom at the end -- ya, she had the right to make a victim's statement, but I'm surprised that the judge allowed her to carry on, completely out of control, basically yelling at everyone in the courtroom and the world about how unfairly she was depicted on the documentary.

Wizard of Oz?  Nah, woman, you just plain cray-cray.

[AZChristian]

@zobot81 . . . I think you meant to say that Candace is a lunatic.  Caitlyn is Kathleen's daughter; Candace is the sister.

I agree that Elizabeth Ratliff's death should  not have been allowed in, but I disagree on the bisexuality.  If Kathleen found those e-mails and websites that evening, she may well have confronted Michael.  He had no job, and was bringing in no money.  The house had been bought way back when he was a successful author, and was in his name only.  They were now living solely on Kathleen's income, and her investments had dropped approximately $1,000,000 at the time of her death because the dot com bubble had burst.  She knew that she was likely about to be laid off, with little likelihood that she could find another job at her age paying that much money.  She was putting Caitlyn, Martha, and Margaret through college, and she and Michael were living on credit cards.  (Reported by a forensic accountant.)  

IMO, it's possible/likely that she saw the e-mails and website printouts (for some reason they were in a manila folder with her pay stubs and tax records) while waiting for an expected e-mail to come in about a business meeting the next morning.  When Michael came into the house, she may have confronted him . . . she's paying all the bills, their credit cards are maxed out, and he's discussing having sex with a man in their house while she's at work.  I think she may have said, "That's it.  I'm leaving."  I can envision her heading up the back stairs, but he runs up the front stairs to head her off.  He meets her at the top of the back stairway and tries to calm her down, manipulate her, stop her from walking away.  She tries to pull away from him and falls down the steps.  At that point, all he knows is that she's now going to tell all his dirty little secrets (no income AND bisexuality), and he makes the decision to shut her up permanently and blame it on her falling down the steps.  Then he gets her life insurance!

According to the coroner, she had some very rare blood spots in her brain that would only form if her brain had been deprived of blood for several hours while she was still alive.  So I think he shoved her down the stairs, either tried to strangle her (evidence of that in the autopsy), hit her with an object or banged her head against the floor, hoping she would bleed out.  He very carefully stated that she was still breathing when he first called 911, but the blood under her was dry.  If she were breathing (very near death), she had not been moving around.

[Calamity Jane]

1 hour ago, zobot81 said:

I think the first eight episodes are original (up to the original verdict), and the last five are new to the documentary's story --- they are devoted to Peterson's life after the trial, and his subsequent appeal.

Totally separate and apart from this...

I don't know if Peterson killed his wife.  The state had a shitty case, and the judge (who ends up presiding over all matters related to Kathleen Peterson's murder) should never have allowed prejudicial evidence into that courtroom.  Namely, Ratliff's death from two decades earlier, as well as Michael Peterson's bisexuality. 

First of all, the state very loosely establishes M. Peterson's motive around pure conjecture --- that somehow Kathleen discovered his bisexuality and philandering on the evening that she died, and her husband...what?  Didn't want her to tell anyone? So that's why he violently bludgeoned her to death?   I find it a huge stretch, given that everyone, even Caitlin (Kathleen's sister), believed the two were very happy and content in their marriage.  Whether or not Kathleen "discovered" her husband's pornography that night, does not seem like a credible reason for her husband to brutally beat her to death.

Secondly, there was simply no evidence to suggest that Ratliff was murdered two decades prior to Kathleen's fall.  The coroner in Germany said she suffered a brain hemorrhage, which caused her to fall down the stairs.  And I'm sorry, but they should never have exhumed her body to re-examine it.  In essence, the prosecution was allowed to retry a case all on their own, without any jury or opportunity for the defense to make its case.  This part of the trial really made me angry.  It was completely out of control to allow the state to present this "evidence" in the courtroom, during Peterson's initial trial.

Lastly, Caitlin is a lunatic.  If you want to find a narcissist, look no further than that lady.  I understand she lost her sister tragically, but her attitude from start to finish was so off-putting, I found her to be the least likable person in the entire documentary.  Her tirade in the courtroom at the end -- ya, she had the right to make a victim's statement, but I'm surprised that the judge allowed her to carry on, completely out of control, basically yelling at everyone in the courtroom and the world about how unfairly she was depicted on the documentary.

Wizard of Oz?  Nah, woman, you just plain cray-cray.

Candace is Kathleen's sister; Caitlyn is her daughter.  Candace was so unhinged during that rant that it crossed over into entertainment for me, making me a terrible person, I guess.  

I do wonder if Peterson would have been convicted without Court TV and all the many commentators yammering on and on and on.  My memory is that the coverage leaned against Peterson.  Even then, I had doubts about the prosecution's case, which watching this series confirmed.  I don't know whether he did it or not, but I think there was reasonable doubt, which should have led to acquittal.  People have strong feelings both ways, obviously.  

[zobot81]

5 minutes ago, AZChristian said:

@zobot81 . . . I think you meant to say that Candace is a lunatic.  Caitlyn is Kathleen's daughter; Candace is the sister.

YES!! Totally. My bad.  No way would I say anything negative about a girl who lost her mother so horribly.  Or any young person who's an innocent bystander in something as awful and grueling as a murder trial -- where naturally, families pick sides.

Thanks for the heads-up!  I meant Candace, not Caitlyn.

[fountain]

I have known many people who were happily married in the eyes of others and they divorced and it was a huge surprise to everyone so I don’t put much stock in the defense claim of a happy marriage.  There are many abusive people who others think they are super people as well so these defenses don’t mean much.

I am not sure about guilt, there are a bunch of things that the prosecution did poorly but Mike sure did seem to love to be on trial and on display.

[zobot81]

1 hour ago, fountain said:

I have known many people who were happily married in the eyes of others and they divorced and it was a huge surprise to everyone so I don’t put much stock in the defense claim of a happy marriage.  There are many abusive people who others think they are super people as well so these defenses don’t mean much.

I am not sure about guilt, there are a bunch of things that the prosecution did poorly but Mike sure did seem to love to be on trial and on display.

I get you here, 100%. I'm really not trying to say I  believe it is impossible that shit went down in exactly the way that the prosecution posits, or that couples don't keep unhappy secrets from the world, or that abuse is always obvious to surrounding loved-ones.  What I am suggesting is that the kind of rage required to perpetrate this level of violence against someone who, at the very least, the accused cared for a great deal for money -- I guess it's harder for me to make that leap.

1 hour ago, AZChristian said:

@zobot81 . . . I think you meant to say that Candace is a lunatic.  Caitlyn is Kathleen's daughter; Candace is the sister.

I agree that Elizabeth Ratliff's death should  not have been allowed in, but I disagree on the bisexuality.  If Kathleen found those e-mails and websites that evening, she may well have confronted Michael.  He had no job, and was bringing in no money.  The house had been bought way back when he was a successful author, and was in his name only.  They were now living solely on Kathleen's income, and her investments had dropped approximately $1,000,000 at the time of her death because the dot com bubble had burst.  She knew that she was likely about to be laid off, with little likelihood that she could find another job at her age paying that much money.  She was putting Caitlyn, Martha, and Margaret through college, and she and Michael were living on credit cards.  (Reported by a forensic accountant.)  

IMO, it's possible/likely that she saw the e-mails and website printouts (for some reason they were in a manila folder with her pay stubs and tax records) while waiting for an expected e-mail to come in about a business meeting the next morning.  When Michael came into the house, she may have confronted him . . . she's paying all the bills, their credit cards are maxed out, and he's discussing having sex with a man in their house while she's at work.  I think she may have said, "That's it.  I'm leaving."  I can envision her heading up the back stairs, but he runs up the front stairs to head her off.  He meets her at the top of the back stairway and tries to calm her down, manipulate her, stop her from walking away.  She tries to pull away from him and falls down the steps.  At that point, all he knows is that she's now going to tell all his dirty little secrets (no income AND bisexuality), and he makes the decision to shut her up permanently and blame it on her falling down the steps.  Then he gets her life insurance!

According to the coroner, she had some very rare blood spots in her brain that would only form if her brain had been deprived of blood for several hours while she was still alive.  So I think he shoved her down the stairs, either tried to strangle her (evidence of that in the autopsy), hit her with an object or banged her head against the floor, hoping she would bleed out.  He very carefully stated that she was still breathing when he first called 911, but the blood under her was dry.  If she were breathing (very near death), she had not been moving around.

So, I'm curious why none of these details are in the documentary (though I venture to guess that the filmmakers are bias... or maybe I fell asleep and missed a few details...).  But I'm even more curious to know why the prosecution didn't make the couple's financial crises the centerpiece for the a motive.  They must have thought the bisexual angle would be more damaging to the Peterson's character...which I don't think I need to speculate on, because we all know how well it worked for them.

[larapu2000]

Yeah, I'm not convinced he murdered Elizabeth Ratliff, it's just a very creepy coincidence, perhaps?

I don't think the Germany death should have been allowed into the case, however, I do think the bisexuality should have been, because it DID tie into possible motive.  It wasn't like Michael was openly bisexual.  If he was banging other women on the side, that should be allowed into evidence as motive, it's the same idea.  If your wife doesn't know you're stepping out and then turns up dead, yeah, you don't look super innocent.

The part where they're prepping Michael for testifying and he's doing that weird humming thing?  It might not be creepy for someone else, but it skeeved me right the fuck out.

[AZChristian]

28 minutes ago, zobot81 said:

I get you here, 100%. I'm really not trying to say I  believe it is impossible that shit went down in exactly the way that the prosecution posits, or that couples don't keep unhappy secrets from the world, or that abuse is always obvious to surrounding loved-ones.  What I am suggesting is that the kind of rage required to perpetrate this level of violence against someone who, at the very least, the accused cared for a great deal for money -- I guess it's harder for me to make that leap.

So, I'm curious why none of these details are in the documentary (though I venture to guess that the filmmakers are bias... or maybe I fell asleep and missed a few details...).  But I'm even more curious to know why the prosecution didn't make the couple's financial crises the centerpiece for the a motive.  They must have thought the bisexual angle would be more damaging to the Peterson's character...which I don't think I need to speculate on, because we all know how well it worked for them.

The prosecution did provide evidence about financial problems.  But - as you wondered above - the filmmakers were definitely biased in favor of the defense.  The filmmakers made money off of their work on this story.  They were trying to present Michael Peterson in the least offensive way possible . . . which couldn't have been easy, since he came across to me as a very unlikable person.

[zobot81]

21 minutes ago, AZChristian said:

The prosecution did provide evidence about financial problems.  But - as you wondered above - the filmmakers were definitely biased in favor of the defense.  The filmmakers made money off of their work on this story.  They were trying to present Michael Peterson in the least offensive way possible . . . which couldn't have been easy, since he came across to me as a very unlikable person.

For the duration of the series, I kept asking myself if he seemed guilty, or if I even liked him, just on a gut level.  I felt nothing, either way.  Which is very strange for me, because I usually have a visceral response to any personality disorder that falls somewhere on the sociopath's spectrum.  Perhaps he was such a pure, charismatic narcissist that I was unable to recognize his deep, emotional detachment.  He must hide it very well.

....weeellll....there was that one scene where his son, daughter-in-law, and infant grandson visit him in jail.  The way he responds to the child is totally bizarre.  He doesn't seem to care much at all that he the child is there, and basically doing everything a little baby can to be the cutest thing that anyone's ever even seen.  Yet, Peterson keeps pointing the conversation back onto himself.  Which did raise a few flags.  I didn't like that at all.

 

(Sidebar: Can we please talk about what a hot tomale his eldest son is? Especially in his 30's?  Whoa.  Babe-city.)

[abronfeld1]

Even with the obvious bias of the documentary, I saw enough to lead me to believe that Michael probably killed his wife. Having said that, I am always shocked by the lengths that law enforcement will sometimes take to slant a case in their favor. Rudolf was right in saying that innocent men are convicted much more often than expected as a result of these kinds of abuses. I think that the jury probably got it right, but for some of the wrong reasons. As a juror, missing the Deaver evidence, I would have had a tough time bringing back a guilty verdict. Too much reasonable doubt.  All in all, a great documentary, even with the heavy- handed emotional slant toward Michael Peterson.

[UniqueHandle]

3 hours ago, zobot81 said:

 

 

(Sidebar: Can we please talk about what a hot tomale his eldest son is? Especially in his 30's?  Whoa.  Babe-city.)

Every time one of the sons is on the screen, my 21 year old daughter and I both look at each other and say "that jaw line!" Both super hot! 

[Redcookie]

Does anyone have any idea what the new stuff is, or perhaps what episodes? I watched this ages ago and wonder if it’s worth watching again. Thanks

[zobot81]

57 minutes ago, UniqueHandle said:

Every time one of the sons is on the screen, my 21 year old daughter and I both look at each other and say "that jaw line!" Both super hot! 

blazing  ; )

[Mikka]

Am I the only one who thinks that Michael’s adopted daughter Margaret Ratliff is his spitting image? To me her eyes are unmistakably Peterson eyes.

If it were the case that they were actually father and daughter then that could put the German death in a whole different light. 

[MadLove]

9 hours ago, Redcookie said:

Does anyone have any idea what the new stuff is, or perhaps what episodes? I watched this ages ago and wonder if it’s worth watching again. Thanks

The last 3 episodes is the new stuff.

[TaraS1]

I think he's very likely guilty and most definitely skeevy.  His interactions with his kids and grandkids, to me, are the interactions of someone playing the role of what they think a doting father and grandfather would look like.  I noticed quite a few instances where the kids would tell him they loved him and he didn't say it back, just did that creepy little laugh of his.  Doesn't make him a killer, of course, but it was still a red flag to me.

That being said, I don't think the Germany stuff should have been allowed in either.  It was entirely prejudicial and IIRC, the same medical examiner who did Kathleen's autopsy is the one who did Elizabeth Ratliff's after the exhumation.  How is that remotely fair and unbiased?  Again, I still think he killed Kathleen, but there were plenty of reasons he deserved a retrial.

And yes, the one son was smoking hot lol.  

[AZChristian]

3 hours ago, Mikka said:

Am I the only one who thinks that Michael’s adopted daughter Margaret Ratliff is his spitting image? To me her eyes are unmistakably Peterson eyes.

If it were the case that they were actually father and daughter then that could put the German death in a whole different light. 

I think both of the girls look just like their mother.  And - IMO - if he DID kill Elizabeth, maybe it's because he made advances towards her (at the top of the stairway) which she rebuffed.  Again, it started out as an accident but he killed her to keep her from talking about his behavior.  Just like Kathleen.

Honestly, if he were to get involved with someone now, I hope they're smart enough to be sure they live in a one-story home.

[absnow54]

3 hours ago, Mikka said:

Am I the only one who thinks that Michael’s adopted daughter Margaret Ratliff is his spitting image? To me her eyes are unmistakably Peterson eyes.

Yes! I'm not questioning her paternity, but she could definitely pass as his bio-kid.

[AZChristian]

I think Caitlyn could pass for their bio-sister as well.  It's odd how much they all look alike.

[Redcookie]

A thousand thanks. Gonna dive back in.

[zobot81]

There are not enough images of Todd Peterson online, okay?

[Pindrop]

Utterly compelling. The last few episodes are fantastic, and it is with dismay that you realise that Peterson's lawyer had convincingly identified all of the blatant flaws ten years before anyone else came to recognise them. I cannot comment on guilt or innocence because... erm ... well ... (this is a thoroughly partisan documentary, yet it fails to establish innocence spectacularly), but it is not really about guilt or innocence but about the failings in the system. I thoroughly enjoyed the series. 

Edited June 14, 2018 by Pindrop

[FlickerInTheNight]

On 6/12/2018 at 9:08 AM, zobot81 said:

I think the first eight episodes are original (up to the original verdict), and the last five are new to the documentary's story --- they are devoted to Peterson's life after the trial, and his subsequent appeal.

Totally separate and apart from this...

I don't know if Peterson killed his wife.  The state had a shitty case, and the judge (who ends up presiding over all matters related to Kathleen Peterson's murder) should never have allowed prejudicial evidence into that courtroom.  Namely, Ratliff's death from two decades earlier, as well as Michael Peterson's bisexuality. 

First of all, the state very loosely establishes M. Peterson's motive around pure conjecture --- that somehow Kathleen discovered his bisexuality and philandering on the evening that she died, and her husband...what?  Didn't want her to tell anyone? So that's why he violently bludgeoned her to death?   I find it a huge stretch, given that everyone, even Caitlin (Kathleen's sister), believed the two were very happy and content in their marriage.  Whether or not Kathleen "discovered" her husband's pornography that night, does not seem like a credible reason for her husband to brutally beat her to death.

Secondly, there was simply no evidence to suggest that Ratliff was murdered two decades prior to Kathleen's fall.  The coroner in Germany said she suffered a brain hemorrhage, which caused her to fall down the stairs.  And I'm sorry, but they should never have exhumed her body to re-examine it.  In essence, the prosecution was allowed to retry a case all on their own, without any jury or opportunity for the defense to make its case.  This part of the trial really made me angry.  It was completely out of control to allow the state to present this "evidence" in the courtroom, during Peterson's initial trial.

Lastly, Caitlin is a lunatic.  If you want to find a narcissist, look no further than that lady.  I understand she lost her sister tragically, but her attitude from start to finish was so off-putting, I found her to be the least likable person in the entire documentary.  Her tirade in the courtroom at the end -- ya, she had the right to make a victim's statement, but I'm surprised that the judge allowed her to carry on, completely out of control, basically yelling at everyone in the courtroom and the world about how unfairly she was depicted on the documentary.

Wizard of Oz?  Nah, woman, you just plain cray-cray.

I wholeheartedly agree with this.  There was a lot of "Well she may have" or "it's likely she saw" where there is no actual evidence of that happening.  And with the rash of putting people in jail who have been wrongfully convicted, this is NOT enough anymore.  It irritates me to no end when prosecutors go off on crap like this as if it matters.  And the sad thing is, to most jurors IT DOES.  C'mon now people.  Stop watching so much Dateline and expecting everything to be tied up in a nice little bow like CSI shows you.  Unless there is more credible evidence then "we THINK they had a fight and we THINK he pushed her down the stairs and we THINK...."  I don't care what you think.  I care what you can prove.

On 6/12/2018 at 11:18 AM, AZChristian said:

IMO, it's possible/likely that she saw the e-mails and website printouts (for some reason they were in a manila folder with her pay stubs and tax records) while waiting for an expected e-mail to come in about a business meeting the next morning.  When Michael came into the house, she may have confronted him . . . she's paying all the bills, their credit cards are maxed out, and he's discussing having sex with a man in their house while she's at work.  I think she may have said, "That's it.  I'm leaving."  I can envision her heading up the back stairs, but he runs up the front stairs to head her off.  He meets her at the top of the back stairway and tries to calm her down, manipulate her, stop her from walking away.  She tries to pull away from him and falls down the steps.  At that point, all he knows is that she's now going to tell all his dirty little secrets (no income AND bisexuality), and he makes the decision to shut her up permanently and blame it on her falling down the steps.  Then he gets her life insurance!

This very well could be true.  One problem...you can't prove it.  And unless you can prove it, it doesn't belong anywhere in the trial.  

I don't think he did it.  I find her family to be insufferable with their assurances that he did.  I'm always put off by family members who are so immediate and steadfast in their beliefs that "my sister would never have allowed that".  

In my experience, you have no idea what she allowed and did not allow within her marriage.  What she would have discussed or not discussed within or outside of the confines of her marriage and to be so assured that you would have known is laughable.  My mother was the strongest woman on he planet who preached to me about the dangers of depression and suicide and how she never in a million years would do that to her family.  Wanna know how she died?  Suicide.  To this day we have family members exclaiming there is no way she ever would've done that.  Know what?  You weren't living with her the last 5 years of her life when she quite literally decided she was done.  

Point is...if you're not living with someone, you don't know what goes on in their house.  You don't know what they find acceptable.  You don't know what she would have kept a secret, because to be honest her husband being bisexual is nobody else's business.  I probably wouldn't discuss it with my closest friends either.

The prosecution were right up there on my hate scale with the prosecution for the West Memphis 3.  Their arrogance and smugness and smartass attitudes through the entire documentary made me see red.  You are dealing with someone's life and the death of their spouse who was a mother to children who are watching this...how about you keep your sarcastic side comments to yourself?  That bitch with the red lipstick made me especially angry.  And they were seriously SERIOUSLY skirting the line of being homophobic with their absolute INSISTENCE that because he lied about being bisexual and had sex with men it meant he was a killer.  I'm shocked they didn't skip with glee out of the courtroom when they got their verdict.  

At this point, I don't care if he did it.  They put a known liar on the stand who had been proven he was misleading with his testing and let him spin a story because it fit their theory and there is no excuse for that kind of recklessness.  Prosecutors like that should be thrown in jail for at least as long as the people they wrongfully convict because they don't have enough evidence and decide to mislead the jury with smoke and mirrors instead.

[Lisin]

I... I legitimately think it's just as plausible that it was an owl. I am not kidding. Owl Theory is just as reasonable as the prosecution's case imo. I'm not saying it's impossible that he did it, I just think the prosecution did a terrible job. Admittedly I'm wrong (in part at least) because he was found guilty but... I'm holding fast to the owl theory. It explains everything so well. 

[zobot81]

23 minutes ago, Lisin said:

I... I legitimately think it's just as plausible that it was an owl. I am not kidding. Owl Theory is just as reasonable as the prosecution's case imo. I'm not saying it's impossible that he did it, I just think the prosecution did a terrible job. Admittedly I'm wrong (in part at least) because he was found guilty but... I'm holding fast to the owl theory. It explains everything so well. 

<3

(thank you for saying this...it takes guts...and i sort of think so, too....)

[FlickerInTheNight]

1 hour ago, Lisin said:

I... I legitimately think it's just as plausible that it was an owl. I am not kidding. Owl Theory is just as reasonable as the prosecution's case imo. I'm not saying it's impossible that he did it, I just think the prosecution did a terrible job. Admittedly I'm wrong (in part at least) because he was found guilty but... I'm holding fast to the owl theory. It explains everything so well. 

I agree as well.  If I'm expected to believe Duane Deaver even after it was proven he was a lying POS then I could believe an owl attacked her.  

God that lady with the red lipstick just got on my last nerve.  "They are TRIED and TRUE....because they work for us."

Um, what?

[amazinglybored]

On 2018-06-12 at 4:22 PM, zobot81 said:

Sidebar: Can we please talk about what a hot tomale his eldest son is? Especially in his 30's?  Whoa.  Babe-city.)

 

Todd? Really hot.

 

 

On 2018-06-12 at 5:45 PM, abronfeld1 said:

Even with the obvious bias of the documentary, I saw enough to lead me to believe that Michael probably killed his wife. Having said that, I am always shocked by the lengths that law enforcement will sometimes take to slant a case in their favor. Rudolf was right in saying that innocent men are convicted much more often than expected as a result of these kinds of abuses. I think that the jury probably got it right, but for some of the wrong reasons. As a juror, missing the Deaver evidence, I would have had a tough time bringing back a guilty verdict. Too much reasonable doubt.  All in all, a great documentary, even with the heavy- handed emotional slant toward Michael Peterson.

 

Yeah, the thing that gets me is that even in something so biased towards him he came off so badly. Fake, manipulative, callous, narcissistic, etc. I think there’s something about him ending up in a relationship with the editor as well. They did leave things out like the financial problems and situation (they were in debt, she was most likely going to be fired, everything was in her name, her life insurance policy, her pension), how weird some of the crime scene was, the red neurons indicating his timele was bs, the bruising on her arms and damage to cartilage in the front of her neck. How much he overstated how inebeiated she was and how little they ever showed about who Kathleen was.

 

The prosecution still arguably didn’t legitimately get the job done and simply used homophobia within the jury to get the correct result and Deaver was a pos. This might ultimately be what’s this case I see remembered for, tbh. Their case wasn’t quite as weak as the show portrayed though... which might make their screwups worse.

 

 

Also, someone mentioned his pipe. That stupid pipe that he suddenly, randomly had made me cackle.

[Penman61]

I'm not sure I care for this gritty Brady Bunch reboot.

[Lisin]

9 hours ago, Penman61 said:

I'm not sure I care for this gritty Brady Bunch reboot.

Coffee literally just came out of my nose laughing at this. Thank you! 

[Whimsy]

On 6/13/2018 at 8:53 AM, AZChristian said:

I think both of the girls look just like their mother.  And - IMO - if he DID kill Elizabeth, maybe it's because he made advances towards her (at the top of the stairway) which she rebuffed.  Again, it started out as an accident but he killed her to keep her from talking about his behavior.  Just like Kathleen.

Honestly, if he were to get involved with someone now, I hope they're smart enough to be sure they live in a one-story home.

When that one friend in Germany who pointed out how much Elizabeth and his first wife (I forgot her name) looked alike, my first thought was he killed Elizabeth by accident. But, I’m not sure he killed her really. Such an odd coincidence if he didn’t though. 

I do think he killed Kathleen though and also believe she found out about his lifestyle and threatened to leave him. But, I agree- there is no real evidence to this so the prosecution didn’t do their job. 

 

ETA: I’m watching episode 12 and Michael said something I found very strange. He said “I’m going to have to admit...I’m not going to admit. I told them that, never, never would I admit that I killed Kathleen”. Wouldn’t an innocent person say “I would never SAY I killed Kathleen”?  

[MargotWendice]

Knowing a fair amount about the case, I found this documentary completely infuriating. They left out so much important evidence that if I based my opinion solely on this documentary I would be completely perplexed about how they got a conviction in the first place.

The prosecution had a financial motive front and center in this case. Kathleen was the major breadwinner and she owned their house. Peterson was in debt as were both of his sons. He wanted to bail them out (so he could be the "perfect dad") but told Patty that he couldn't ask Kathleen for the money. Clayton had just gotten out of prison for planting pipe bombs and Kathleen may have felt exhausted by his kid's issues. Given that she left her first husband over infidelity she may have lost it after finding porn or emails on Peterson's computer. If she threatened to leave him he would be financially ruined which is a pretty big motive.

The documentary left out evidence that she had a broken hyoid bone which does not fit the scene of her 'fall'.

They also did not show the evidence that his bloody footprint was on the back of her leg. How did that happen if she fell and landed face up? (This did get mentioned in the follow up episodes.)

There was evidence of bloody footprints going to and from the laundry room, but they had been cleaned up.

Kathleen had been dead for roughly two hours. Peterson changed his story, first saying he had come in to turn on the pool lights, but changed his story to say he had smoked a cigar for 45 minutes when he learned that she took longer to die than he thought. This also makes it less likely she was breathing when he made the first 911 call, as he claimed.

The question remains: how did her blood get inside his shorts? Deaver was an idiot but his role was blood spatter. .There was no evidence that he planted any blood evidence.

I could go on but I will leave it there...

[Glory]

Would wikipedia bet he place to read more about this case? Can anyone recommend articles about what's missing from the documentary?