The Staircase

[AZChristian]

2 hours ago, MargotWendice said:

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.

I completely agree with most of what you wrote, except for the ownership of the house. In the book she wrote about the case, Aphrodite Jones said that Michael bought the house with his advance on a book he was writing, and that Kathleen wasn't even on the deed. But she does go on to give details of their high debts, with three kids in college. And he was bringing in nothing at that point. Just spending. Yep, if I'd found out that my husband was paying for sex with MY income, there would be quite a confrontation. Luckily, we live in a single story home.

[MargotWendice]

2 hours ago, AZChristian said:

I completely agree with most of what you wrote, except for the ownership of the house. In the book she wrote about the case, Aphrodite Jones said that Michael bought the house with his advance on a book he was writing, and that Kathleen wasn't even on the deed. But she does go on to give details of their high debts, with three kids in college. And he was bringing in nothing at that point. Just spending. Yep, if I'd found out that my husband was paying for sex with MY income, there would be quite a confrontation. Luckily, we live in a single story home.

Ah, I stand corrected. Kathleen apparently owned a different house in Forest Hills before moving in with Michael.  
And your final line made me laugh (not that any of this is funny exactly), because I have thought that any woman who gets involved with this guy should be grateful he lives in a one story apartment now. I mean, I have been on this earth for more than 40 years and do not know of one person who died falling down stairs. This guys knows TWO women who died in such a way. What are the odds? 

[spankydoll]

Clayton and pipe bombs? Jeez Louise these people are creepy. 

it seems a bit much to have kept all of the blood in the walls intact. I don't want to be vulgar but would it smell?

Michael is a poseur. They can be dangerous when the veil falls. 

[leighdear]

Any chance bad-seed son Clayton did the deed & dad covered for him?  He could have had a confrontation with Kathleen, needing money for something, freaked when she said no & choked her.  After he offs her in a rage, dad came in, saw what happened & told son to beat feet outta there.  Too much blood to clean up & son needed to establish an alibi before dad called 911.   Todd showed up quickly with his girlfriend, then the sisters showed up, but where was Clayton that night? 

I actually re-watched the 1st episode & he was unaccounted for in that part of the series.  And he stood hidden behind his sisters in news shots right afterwards. 

Narcissist dad takes the fall for his screw-up son, convinced he can beat a conviction rap.  But overestimates his acting skills & defense team abilities.   Yeah, it's an out-there theory, and Clayton's got the wife & kids, but that doesn't mean much.  *LOL*

[AZChristian]

10 hours ago, spankydoll said:

Clayton and pipe bombs? Jeez Louise these people are creepy. 

it seems a bit much to have kept all of the blood in the walls intact. I don't want to be vulgar but would it smell?

Michael is a poseur. They can be dangerous when the veil falls. 

Because they had that stairwell sealed up, they had to open it when they took the jury there. Reports are that it did stink.

[AZChristian]

On 6/12/2018 at 12:13 PM, zobot81 said:

So, I'm curious why none of these details are in the documentary (though I venture to guess that the filmmakers are biased . . . 

I just found this online this morning, and have seen nothing elsewhere that talks about the fact that Michael Peterson was having an affair with an editor of "The Staircase"!!!  And the director knew about it, but claims it did not affect the way Peterson was portrayed.  Yeah, right.

And if you look at her picture . . . the similarity in how she looks compared to Elizabeth and Kathleen is startling.  Good thing she never angered him at the top of a stairway while they were together.

[rlc]

Had I only watched this documentary, I would have been unsure about his guilt, but having seen other things, I believe he murdered Kathleen.

That said, I do not believe that he should have been found guilty based on the trial. The previous incident in Germany should not have been allowed, and the testimony that led to the release/new trial was clearly not kosher and should never have been allowed (based on everything his attorney said at the time).

For the sake of the kids, Martha and Margaret in particular, I’m glad he was released and they were able to hold on to their beliefs that he was innocent. It would be unimaginably cruel for them to go through life thinking that he murdered both their biological and adoptive mother.

As to whether or not Kathleen know about his bisexuality, I’m not sure about that. No one really knows what goes on in people’s relationships. To the above poster that said she would have confided this in a friend or sibling, I strongly disagree. People often keep things like this secret either to avoid embarrassment, or to keep people from being biased or judging their lives.

[leighdear]

The daughters were adamant that Kathleen was very forthright and the family was so open and communicative.  But I don't buy for a second that those 2 girls knew daddy dearest was in to banging dudes.  Didn't the older one say one of the brothers revealed that to them before the trial, so they wouldn't be surprised?  That's not a family without secrets. 

I honestly do think Michael killed Kathleen.  In fact, I keep thinking of him as "Scott Peterson" in my head.  Weird.

[spankydoll]

1 hour ago, leighdear said:

The daughters were adamant that Kathleen was very forthright and the family was so open and communicative.  But I don't buy for a second that those 2 girls knew daddy dearest was in to banging dudes.  Didn't the older one say one of the brothers revealed that to them before the trial, so they wouldn't be surprised?  That's not a family without secrets. 

I honestly do think Michael killed Kathleen.  In fact, I keep thinking of him as "Scott Peterson" in my head.  Weird.

Michael is all that these kids have. I can certainly understand the need to cling to your remaining parent and not believe a horrifying truth about him. It's very sad to watch these kids just follow along  

[bilgistic]

I'm doing the visual equivalent of sticking my fingers in my ears and singing because I'm not reading the posts so far because I'm only on episode 11. This is the first time I have seen any of this series. I don't remember this case or trial even though I live in Charlotte, NC, and was in my late 20s then.

I just saw the part where Michael has been denied the possibility to take the Alford plea and anything else that gets him out of saying in court, "I'm guilty." David Rudolf, his attorney, calls him and tells him he can't serve as his attorney any longer due to now living in Charlotte (it's about a two-hour drive from Charlotte to the Raleigh-Durham area) and he can't mentally/emotionally go through another trial. He says he has hooked him up with another attorney.

Michael then has the gall to act put out over David's decision. While I think David is more than a bit skeezy, he has devoted 10 years of his life to Michael's case. Michael acts like he's just entitled to David's continued devotion and to not just enter a guilty plea just because of what? Who he is?

Again, I haven't seen the last few episodes, but the worst he would likely face is a suspended sentence for probation and/or time served.

I'll be back when I finish!

[Janc]

OK Michael. Your story all along had been that Kathleen knew about your 'other interests' and was OK with it.  Yet in the last episode you say (going by memory here) that she'd have been shocked to find out.  Which is it?

I really wish the owl theory had been included in this doc. 

Edited to add:  David Rudolf has a blog where he discusses the episodes...  https://davidsrudolf.com/

Edited June 18, 2018 by Janc

[larapu2000]

10 hours ago, bilgistic said:

I'm doing the visual equivalent of sticking my fingers in my ears and singing because I'm not reading the posts so far because I'm only on episode 11. This is the first time I have seen any of this series. I don't remember this case or trial even though I live in Charlotte, NC, and was in my late 20s then.

I just saw the part where Michael has been denied the possibility to take the Alford plea and anything else that gets him out of saying in court, "I'm guilty." David Rudolf, his attorney, calls him and tells him he can't serve as his attorney any longer due to now living in Charlotte (it's about a two-hour drive from Charlotte to the Raleigh-Durham area) and he can't mentally/emotionally go through another trial. He says he has hooked him up with another attorney.

Michael then has the gall to act put out over David's decision. While I think David is more than a bit skeezy, he has devoted 10 years of his life to Michael's case. Michael acts like he's just entitled to David's continued devotion and to not just enter a guilty plea just because of what? Who he is?

Again, I haven't seen the last few episodes, but the worst he would likely face is a suspended sentence for probation and/or time served.

I'll be back when I finish!

The way he acted so over the top put out over David's decision had me wondering at how staged the conversation was, because I got the impression that Michael was out of money and David was all "deuces, dude" because he charged more than the state allowance for a defense attourney for those who can't afford one.  Which is what it more annoying when Michael kept pressing David, it was like he wanted David to admit that he was doing it for the money.  OF COURSE HE WAS, IT'S HIS JOB.

[Penman61]

35 minutes ago, Janc said:

I really wish the owl theory had been included in this doc. 

What is the owl theory?

[Janc]

53 minutes ago, Penman61 said:

What is the owl theory?

http://www.vulture.com/2018/06/the-staircase-netflix-owl-theory-explained.html

[Whimsy]

On 6/16/2018 at 4:00 PM, MargotWendice said:

 

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.

 

I was a little confused when the prosecution kept bringing up a footprint on the back of her leg.  That was never introduced.  I believe 100% he was guilty.  The problem, from what I saw in this documentary alone so I could be wrong, is that the prosecution was so focused on the blow poke.  I was wondering why it had to be the blow poke.  Why not something else, or why not just banging her head against the floor?  I don't know enough about forensics, but the blow poke made no sense to me because of the tight space, the lack of cast-off etc.  I would've liked to have heard more about ALL of the evidence in this documentary. 

On 6/17/2018 at 1:40 AM, spankydoll said:

Clayton and pipe bombs? Jeez Louise these people are creepy. 

it seems a bit much to have kept all of the blood in the walls intact. I don't want to be vulgar but would it smell?

I thought that family we creepy/weird before I heard about the pipe bombs.  Their jokes and stuff were just so awkward. 

I never understood the preserving of the blood in this case.  Is that normal?  I thought that was the point of photographing the scene.  Granted, even the photographs had issues (supposedly) but I still wouldn't think that a crime scene in a lived-in home would be expected to be cordoned off and not used for literally YEARS.  Also, who's to say that it was NEVER touched during that time frame?  

[bilgistic]

I finished the show and...wow. I believe that Michael Peterson is guilty of both the death of Elizabeth Ratliff and Kathleen Peterson. They are way too coincidental.

Michael is a raging narcissist and psychopath. He feels the world owes him. He and his attorney David Rudolf were a fine pair because they both were very self-important. When David yelled at the tech working the slides in the courtroom, that's all I needed to know about him (I've been in the tech's metaphorical position). It was 7:20 at night. When did he give the tech the photos for the slides? I'm willing to bet it was at 7:00. I digress.

As others have mentioned, them sitting around joking about Kathleen's death was chilling. I get gallows humor, but this was something different. It was laughing at her expense.

During the entire show, I couldn't help but think how this same scenario would play out if the accused were a poor black man. The privilege that Michael was afforded was incredible. Durham is a very liberal town; it always votes "blue". I don't know about the justice system there, but for him to act like he's getting an unfair shake when he was literally given all the chances in the world and has a high-powered attorney is laughable. Yes, the Deaver situation was obviously bad. But was the rest of the trial unfair? His ability to appeal? His being released on house arrest while others would just be locked up forever because they couldn't pay $300,000? I don't know.

I have more thoughts but they aren't very organized right now.

By the way, the female attorney for the prosecution, Freda Black, who said that Michael's porn was "pure-T filth!" had two DWIs in 2012 and 2015. She was a piece of work.

Edited June 19, 2018 by bilgistic

[laurakaye]

On 6/11/2018 at 11:24 PM, larapu2000 said:

I think he killed Kathleen, because I don't believe him when he says she knew about his bisexuality.  

Of the long list of things that creeped me out, this hovers near the top - not that he is bisexual, but the oh-so-casual, pipe-smoke-filled manner in which he proclaimed that she knew and was fine with it.  Then towards the end, he smarmily dances around the question when he said that if Kathleen had known about it, she "would've made it okay."  Which is it?  Either she knew and was cool or she didn't know.  I think this guy is so in love with the sound of his own voice, he's convinced himself that everyone who listens to him wax poetic must automatically believe him, too.

 

On 6/12/2018 at 1:29 PM, fountain said:

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.

Oh, man...there's no doubt that he loved being on camera.  His constant weird, out-of-place laughing and penchant for dropping a good curse word now and again seemed incredibly "off" when you think that his two adopted daughters have lost not one, but two mothers.  He did not seem overly despondent about that.  He did, however, really seem to enjoy lounging weirdly on the furniture while those two same daughters gazed at him in adoration, listening rapt to his every utterance.  They really make for a strange family.  To each their own, but yikes.

 

On 6/13/2018 at 5:42 AM, 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. 

Mind blown.  And while I didn't necessarily notice the resemblance between Michael and Margaret, what I did notice is that Margaret and Martha really didn't look like sisters at all (IMO).

 

My questions are - where was he living during the first trial?  It looked like a mansion.  Was that his home with Kathleen?  Were the bloodstains there the whole time?  That can't be right, because people were living there.  I was confused as to where he was living in relation to where Kathleen had the accident, because the blood was there for ages.

 

I am convinced he killed Kathleen.  I am not sure about his involvement with Elizabeth's accident.  However, assuming Elizabeth did have a stroke and fall down the stairs, perhaps this method of death stuck in Michael's mind when he decided to kill Kathleen?

The entire time I was watching, I couldn't stop thinking how much Michael seemed to be reveling in being the star in his very own drama.

[laurakaye]

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

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

Thank you for this post...I immediately put the book on hold at the library.

[AZChristian]

15 minutes ago, laurakaye said:

My questions are - where was he living during the first trial?  It looked like a mansion.  Was that his home with Kathleen?  Were the bloodstains there the whole time?  That can't be right, because people were living there.  I was confused as to where he was living in relation to where Kathleen had the accident, because the blood was there for ages.

He was, in fact, living at the murder scene during the first trial.  It was a 9,000+ sf house that he had bought (in his own name) when he got an advance on one of his books . . . back when he was considered to be a decent writer.  They sealed up the staircase with plywood, and the bloodstains were still there when the jury went to look at the house.  IF my beloved spouse were to die of an "accidental" fall down the steps, I don't think I could spend another night in that house.  But that's just me.  And most other people with an ounce of compassion.

[DoubleUTeeEff]

I think MP is guilty based on the condition of Kathleen's body alone. Even if an owl had attacked her and/or she fell down the stairs, there is no way she would have 7 lacerations on her scalp, cuts and bruises on her face and the rest of her body and possible strangulation. That suggests a fight with a person rather than a quick animal attack or just a fall. Cuts on both her scalp and face and body and bruises around her neck? Nothing but a beating by a person makes sense to me. I'm sure she fell down the stairs during the fight but a fall alone couldn't explain the extent of her injuries.

I think he should still be in prison but Deaver destroyed that possibility. There was not really much to be done by the time everything came to light. I kind of wish Michael had had enough money to go to trial a second time and been convicted properly. I think he was narcissistic enough to go through with it if he had the means. Even when he was in court to plead guilty pursuant to Alford, it seemed like he wanted to use new information about the photo of the blowpoke in his defense.

I don't think we know enough about the Elizabeth Ratcliff case to come to any conclusions and it definitely should not have been allowed in the trial. It was clearly prejudicial and I can't believe the judge allowed it. I think Michael's bisexuality and other "relationships" were fair to bring up as a possible motive for a marital blow out. I think the way the prosecution used it at trial was homophobic but mentioning it as a possibility that Kathleen didn't know and wouldn't like it was definitely fair. In either the penultimate or last episode, Michael did admit that he and Kathleen had never really talked about it. He said they talked about it "obliquely" and that she didn't even know that he was bisexual. I'm not sure you can have a happy open marriage without discussing it. Maybe, but it makes more sense to me that if it was an open marriage rather than infidelity, they would have talked about it and set rules and boundaries. Especially if it were something Kathleen was not comfortable with other people knowing.

Michael's last phone conversation (in the documentary) with his daughter seemed very telling. He almost couldn't fathom that his daughter didn't want to be known as the daughter of an alleged murderer. And he said something like "I don't want to be forgotten" after making a joke about "planning his next one." Clearly, he got some enjoyment out of this whole thing. Only when he had just gotten out of prison did he look diminished. I feel sorry for his adoptive daughters and it makes me wonder if I could live in that much denial.  I suppose they could just be putting on a front. I think the sons know but stand by him which I can understand. If it were my family, I'm not sure how I would react.

Kathleen's sister was very angry at Michael and David. I wonder how much of it was justified and if her statement at court was like a final straw after dealing with them for years. Or it could be that she is another narcissist since she made the plea more about what had happened to her than what had happened to her sister. I feel for her but I'm not sure if that was the time and place. It's hard to say.

I also noticed that Michael didn't even say Kathleen's name when talking to the press after the plea. She became "this person." Very creepy.

[laurakaye]

41 minutes ago, AZChristian said:

He was, in fact, living at the murder scene during the first trial.  It was a 9,000+ sf house that he had bought (in his own name) when he got an advance on one of his books . . . back when he was considered to be a decent writer.  They sealed up the staircase with plywood, and the bloodstains were still there when the jury went to look at the house.  IF my beloved spouse were to die of an "accidental" fall down the steps, I don't think I could spend another night in that house.  But that's just me.  And most other people with an ounce of compassion.

So he's living there...are Margaret and Martha living there as well?  How on earth.....??

 

16 minutes ago, DoubleUTeeEff said:

Michael's last phone conversation (in the documentary) with his daughter seemed very telling. He almost couldn't fathom that his daughter didn't want to be known as the daughter of an alleged murderer. And he said something like "I don't want to be forgotten" after making a joke about "planning his next one." Clearly, he got some enjoyment out of this whole thing. Only when he had just gotten out of prison did he look diminished. I feel sorry for his adoptive daughters and it makes me wonder if I could live in that much denial.  I suppose they could just be putting on a front. I think the sons know but stand by him which I can understand. If it were my family, I'm not sure how I would react.

His relationship with the four kids was....interesting.  So many scenes of Michael holding court, smoking his pipe and swirling his Merlot while his four children gazed at him lovingly, hanging on his every word.  Some of their conversations came across as if Michael were performing Shakespeare and his children were the audience.  And this might be nitpicking, but sometimes the way they were arranged on the furniture just had me staring in bemusement - one particular scene has Michael practically lying flat on the couch while Margaret and Martha are sort of curled together right next to him, in order to both be able to stare at him while he talked.  It was both distracting and creepy - not suggestive of anything, but at the same time it struck me as really odd.

Edited June 18, 2018 by laurakaye

[atlantaloves]

Oh God, he is so guilty.  I have watched so many documentaries about this creep. (Including the one he made about himself when he went to trial). He not only killed his wife, he killed twice same way. Ewwwwwwwwww.  This is a great case. Not going to watch this again, enough already, but everybody, enjoy, this is a really good one. If this is the one I watched before, it is fantastic.  There is a special place in Hell for that lying smug turd.  

[bilgistic]

22 minutes ago, laurakaye said:

So he's living there...are Margaret and Martha living there as well?  How on earth.....??

 

At least one of the sisters was in college. I remember them saying the younger one (I can't remember which is which) was a freshman when Kathleen died. Either she or the other sister was 20 during the trial (they discussed it at her 30th birthday party), and I remember reading or seeing somewhere that one sister was in Boulder and the other was in Utah, maybe? It made me wonder how they could just leave their lives and sit for months in their father's trial.

Only Michael and Kathleen lived in the home at the time of her death. One of the sons lived nearby because he was there that night (maybe before the paramedics?). Wasn't there a question over whether Michael called him before the paramedics?

I can't remember all the players' names.

Edited June 18, 2018 by bilgistic

[AZChristian]

In an attempt to keep an open mind, I discussed the owl theory with Mr. AZC.

Someone somewhere said that a "microscopic feather" had been found in Kathleen's hair.  Let's accept that as fact.  What is more likely:

• She was attacked by an owl leaving distinct markings on her skull and tearing out portions of her hair.  Wouldn't that have caused more than a "microscopic feather" to be left behind?  If she were batting at an attacking owl, wouldn't there be feathers all over the place? Or . . . 
• She was sitting out back on a chaise lounge in an open area in a city that owls were known to inhabit.  There were likely owl feathers or microscopic pieces of feathers that had fallen on the furniture as owls flew by.  A piece of feather sticks to her hair.  She goes in the house, sees evidence of her husband's infidelity, and when he walks into the house, she tells him that she's leaving and taking her paycheck with her.  They scuffle, she falls down the steps, but is not killed instantly.  He realizes that if she leaves, he's broke and his reputation is toast.  So he bashes her head into the floor/walls of the stairway and - in the process - that one microscopic peace of a feather becomes stuck to the blood in her hair.

Nope, still not believing that owl theory.

[bilgistic]

I kept wondering why Michael wasn't writing a book that told "his story". I almost expect an O.J. Simpsonesque "If I Did It" tale of how he could've committed the murder(s) had he wanted to.

I was also wondering how he was affording his apartment. I looked it up, and felons are eligible for Social Security. His place was probably $1000ish a month. He gets free healthcare through the V.A. and probably Medicare. (I think my dad gets both; he's an Army vet who served in Vietnam.)

What I can't work out is who paid for the attorneys at the original trial. As the suspect in Kathleen's death, presumably he wouldn't have access to her insurance benefits or money from her personal accounts; those would go to the children (if not her sisters). I shudder to think that the children gave him the money for his trial, but I imagine that's what happened. Where else would he have gotten the money?

Speaking of the children and money, the following is from the Wikipedia page on Michael. It's not mentioned in the series.

Quote

In October 2002, acting as administrator of Kathleen's estate, Caitlin filed a wrongful-death claim against Michael. In June 2006, he voluntarily filed for bankruptcy. Two weeks later, Caitlin filed an objection to the bankruptcy. On February 1, 2007, Caitlin and Michael settled the wrongful death claim for $25 million, pending acceptance by the courts involved; finalization of the settlement by the court was announced on February 1, 2008. In the settlement, Michael did not admit that he murdered Kathleen. Caitlin is unlikely to ever collect a significant amount of the judgment.

[Miss chi chi]

They completely lost me when they found the fire poker. Soooo staged.

[AZChristian]

My understanding is that his brother, who is an attorney, loaned or donated a lot of the money for legal expenses. Peterson tried every financial machination known to mankind, including trying to get Caitlyn to lend him money from Kathleen's life insurance. He is lower than scum.

Edited June 19, 2018 by AZChristian

[moon]

On 6/13/2018 at 3:01 PM, FlickerInTheNight said:

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.

I so agree with all you've said but I shortened the quote to focus on your mention of that female prosecutor, because she was smug, bullying and vigorously unprofessional. She spoke like a washed-up bimbo on a Real Housewives reunion special, and I find it criminal that a man's life was (partially) in her hands. 

[doesntworkonwood]

I haven't listen to all of it, but if anyone is interested in the trial there's a 17 part podcast from BBC Radio 5 where they talk about some of the things that weren't covered in the documentary (such as finances and owl theory) as well as interviews with Kathleen's sister, the judge, the DA, a jury member and of course Micheal Peterson himself. 

 

Here's the link

[absnow54]

Based on what was presented in the documentary, I have no reason to suspect he's guilty (except for that one scene where he was joking with his son that his grandson was a total "momma's boy" and that he'd "take care of it" and my response was "DON'T GO NEAR A STAIRCASE!") BUT, I think this documentary was completely biased, and presented the case in a way that fit their narrative. I never found myself sympathizing with Michael Petterson, or the lawyer, or any of his children (except when they exhumed the Ratliff body and the daughters had to sit through it.) It was just that none of the evidence that was presented made me think he actually did it, which again, was probably because that's what the documentary wanted me to think.

It wasn't like Making a Murderer where they would present some nonsense afoot with the prosecution, only to reveal something really incriminating of Avery. Based on the discussion in this thread, there were a handful of motives presented by the prosecution that would have made you think, and it's disappointing that the documentary chose not to use them.

[bilgistic]

11 hours ago, moon said:

I so agree with all you've said but I shortened the quote to focus on your mention of that female prosecutor, because she was smug, bullying and vigorously unprofessional. She spoke like a washed-up bimbo on a Real Housewives reunion special, and I find it criminal that a man's life was (partially) in her hands. 

Her name is Freda Black. This is completely shallow, but my rods and cones were offended by her styling choices. She was about 15 years out of date and extra tacky. She's no longer practicing law, perhaps because of her two DWIs.

Her partner, or I guess the lead counsel for the prosecution, Jim Hardin, is a Durham County Superior Court Judge.

Here's an update on most of the folks in the documentary.

[UniqueHandle]

40 minutes ago, bilgistic said:

Her name is Freda Black. This is completely shallow, but my rods and cones were offended by her styling choices. She was about 15 years out of date and extra tacky. She's no longer practicing law, perhaps because of her two DWIs.

Her partner, or I guess the lead counsel for the prosecution, Jim Hardin, is a Durham County Superior Court Judge.

Here's an update on most of the folks in the documentary.

Thanks for that update!! Fascinating!! 

[BigBlueMastiff]

This asshole makes me so angry. I want to punch him in his smug smarmy face. I have no doubt that he killed Kathleen, and agree with others who doubt that she would've have been okay with Michael sleeping with other men given her feelings about marriage fidelity. Not sure about the German woman, but I also don't believe in such coincidences. Like a law enforcement officer said in another show regarding the likelihood of a husband having two murdered wives die in a similar manner (I know German woman wasn't his wife, bear with me) is about as likely as being hit by lightning twice (paraphrased). So eff Michael Peterson, he deserves a miserable life.

[bilgistic]

Here's the dirt on Michael's and Kathleen's financial situation:

MICHAEL PETERSON & THE “STAIRCASE MURDER”: WAS IT ALL JUST ABOUT THE MONEY?

(Sorry for the all caps; I'm copying and pasting on my phone.)

The following answers my question about if he got any of Kathleen's death benefits. I am astounded that he--as the suspect in causing her death--was allowed to collect.

Quote

Within six months of his wife’s death, Peterson collected $347,000 of Kathleen Peterson’s assets, including her 401(k) and pension plans from Nortel Networks. Michael Peterson claimed that he used most of this money for his legal defense — and money definitely made a difference.

In this article:

9 interesting things about Kathleen and Michael Peterson that were left out of 'The Staircase'

these tidbits are revealed:

Quote

3. Kathleen Peterson was the sole owner of the couple's mansion

Kathleen and Michael Peterson famously lived in a sprawling 14-room mansion in the Forest Hills suburb of Durham, North Carolina. The staircase she was found dead at the bottom of was just one of many in the vast property, and the couple were thought to have been relaxing by the swimming pool in the garden prior to Kathleen's death.

But, as the prosecution pointed out in the trial, Kathleen was actually the sole owner of the house and the car. Michael may have been a local newspaper columnist and author, but he wasn't a big earner - and he didn't own the 1810 Cedar Street property. "Michael Peterson knew that the amount of money he was bringing in through his writing had plummeted down to next to nothing," author of a book on Kathleen's death entitled Written In Blood, Diane Fanning, said on the Beyond Reasonable Doubt podcast.

"Without Kathleen's job and her pay check, he could not continue to support his two adult sons, he could not continue to maintain that home, he could not live the lifestyle he'd grown accustomed to. He needed her money to survive the way he wanted to survive," she said.

I think someone in this thread mentioned that Michael owned the house. This contradicts that, but doesn't say why he was allowed to remain in the house after her death.

And in reference to my wondering why he hadn't written a book about his experience...

Quote

8. Michael Peterson had a book deal ready to go if he was found not guilty

Michael Peterson was a writer, and many said he has the kind of ego which craves the spotlight. That description would fit with writer Aphrodite Jones' revelation in her book on the case, A Perfect Husband, that Michael Peterson had a book deal ready and raring to go after the trial - if he was found not guilty.

"Throughout the weeks and weeks of testimony, Michael Peterson had taken extensive notes on legal pads," Aphrodite wrote, explaining that this was likely because of the book deal he had with Harper Collins. When the jury found Michael Peterson guilty of first-degree murder in October 2003, however, the offer was immediately withdrawn.

[AZChristian]

Michael used the house as collateral for loans from his brother to pay his legal expenses.  If his name weren't on the deed, he couldn't do that.  I can't find any records online either way as to who actually owned it.  But Michael had little/no income for several years, and they were carrying massive amounts of credit card debt when Kathleen died.

[ShowsILoveToHate]

18 hours ago, bilgistic said:

 

And in reference to my wondering why he hadn't written a book about his experience...

8. Michael Peterson had a book deal ready to go if he was found not guilty

Michael Peterson was a writer, and many said he has the kind of ego which craves the spotlight. That description would fit with writer Aphrodite Jones' revelation in her book on the case, A Perfect Husband, that Michael Peterson had a book deal ready and raring to go after the trial - if he was found not guilty.

"Throughout the weeks and weeks of testimony, Michael Peterson had taken extensive notes on legal pads," Aphrodite wrote, explaining that this was likely because of the book deal he had with Harper Collins. When the jury found Michael Peterson guilty of first-degree murder in October 2003, however, the offer was immediately withdrawn.

I just finished watching the second-to-last, and last episodes; in the second-to-last episode when the family is gathered around discussing whether Michael should decide to go to trial a second time, or to go for a plea deal, he said something like "....well, if I take a plea deal, I'm guilty, and  I'm certainly not going to let Candace have my book money....".  So apparently he was planning on writing a book all about this. 

 

Ugh, I'm so glad to be done with this guy. I'd seen this story  in years past on various shows, and after watching so many episodes, I had to see it through to the end.  By the way, I LOVED Candace's speech in the court room. 

[bilgistic]

I did, too. I actually clapped afterward. My ex-brother-in-law isn't a murderer, but I hate him for the things he put my sister and niece through. I can't imagine Kathleen's sisters' fury toward that narcissistic psychopath Michael.

[amazinglybored]

3 hours ago, ShowsILoveToHate said:

 I LOVED Candace's speech in the court room. 

 

I didn’t love it but I got it. MP had a documentary crew following him around for years trying to make him look good (it’s still insane that was the attempt to make him look good), Kathleen the person was never really shown in a docuseries about her murder and he was getting out of prison.

 

There’s a BBC podcast about this called Beyond Reasonable Doubt? I haven’t listened yet but I’ve read some good stuff about it if anyone is interested

[ShowsILoveToHate]

1 minute ago, amazinglybored said:

 

I didn’t love it but I got it. MP had a documentary crew following him around for years trying to make him look good (it’s still insane that was the attempt to make him look good), Kathleen the person was never really shown in a docuseries about her murder and he was getting out of prison.

 

There’s a BBC podcast about this called Beyond Reasonable Doubt? I haven’t listened yet but I’ve read some good stuff about it if anyone is interested

I'm interested in the podcast.  What I hated the most about this documentary was all of the time devoted to MP's blathering on and on about himself, and his self-importance. 

[Pindrop]

2 hours ago, ShowsILoveToHate said:

I'm interested in the podcast.  What I hated the most about this documentary was all of the time devoted to MP's blathering on and on about himself, and his self-importance. 

I enjoyed that aspect. What intrigued me was that for an utterly partisan and biased documentary, they failed so incredibly to demonstrate innocence (or non-guilt), or even to make MP a sympathetic character. I enjoyed the insight into the mind of a narcissist, who probably also leans heavily towards psychopathy. It certainly demonstrates why the defence did not want to put MP on the stand.   

Edited June 21, 2018 by Pindrop

[gesundheit]

Just finished. Man, what a piece of work Michael Peterson is. I have to say that while I think he's guilty, (a) there's room for reasonable doubt and (b) the prosecution botched it. I do think it sucks how they were able to weaponize his bisexuality, given that it would be hard to talk about his affairs (which go to motive and are 100% admissible) without that component. One can be bisexual, their spouses can know about it, and they can be faithful. The point is that he wasn't. The fact that he claims she knew of the affairs but they never once talked about it is... come on now. Anyway. I thought Candace's speech was great. She knew she was being filmed for this documentary that sympathized with her sister's murderer and made her and her family look like assholes in the first installation -- this was not only her last chance to make an impact statement to the court, it was her last chance to make an impact statement to Michael, his attorney, and anyone who bought the version of her sold by the documentary. Damn right she was going to make a big finish! You would've had to pry me off the bastard who strangled and beat my sister to death. Which reminds me, has anyone been watching The Last Defense? Looks like there's no forum for it yet but I imagine it would generate the same kind of discussion as everyone has had here. Very similar vibe.

[ShowsILoveToHate]

13 hours ago, Pindrop said:

I enjoyed that aspect. What intrigued me was that for an utterly partisan and biased documentary, they failed so incredibly to demonstrate innocence (or non-guilt), or even to make MP a sympathetic character. I enjoyed the insight into the mind of a narcissist, who probably also leans heavily towards psychopathy. It certainly demonstrates why the defence did not want to put MP on the stand.   

Good point! 

9 minutes ago, gesundheit said:

Just finished. Man, what a piece of work Michael Peterson is. I have to say that while I think he's guilty, (a) there's room for reasonable doubt and (b) the prosecution botched it. I do think it sucks how they were able to weaponize his bisexuality, given that it would be hard to talk about his affairs (which go to motive and are 100% admissible) without that component. One can be bisexual, their spouses can know about it, and they can be faithful. The point is that he wasn't. The fact that he claims she knew of the affairs but they never once talked about it is... come on now. Anyway. I thought Candace's speech was great. She knew she was being filmed for this documentary that sympathized with her sister's murderer and made her and her family look like assholes in the first installation -- this was not only her last chance to make an impact statement to the court, it was her last chance to make an impact statement to Michael, his attorney, and anyone who bought the version of her sold by the documentary. Damn right she was going to make a big finish! You would've had to pry me off the bastard who strangled and beat my sister to death. Which reminds me, has anyone been watching The Last Defense? Looks like there's no forum for it yet but I imagine it would generate the same kind of discussion as everyone has had here. Very similar vibe.

My husband and I have watched a few episodes, and you're right! The theme of that show is very similar to this one, in that it goes back and takes another look at cases where the defendant has been found guilty. I'd follow that forum if one was made. 

[bilgistic]

29 minutes ago, ShowsILoveToHate said:

Good point! 

My husband and I have watched a few episodes, and you're right! The theme of that show is very similar to this one, in that it goes back and takes another look at cases where the defendant has been found guilty. I'd follow that forum if one was made. 

You can request a new forum here. I requested this one! :)

[Glory]

Okay, so I've watched the whole thing. And read the Aphrodite Jones book. I went from thinking he probably did it but that the trial was pretty biased to thinking he definitely did it and that the only reason he got off was because of Deaver. If Deaver hadn't lied, he'd still be rotting away in prison. 

My theory of what happened is that he killed her, Todd knows about it and even possibly helped him cover it up. I think Martha and Margaret are pretty much brain-washed into thinking their Dad is perfect. 

This whole thing is very sad.

As I was reading the Perfect Husband book I started wondering how people would describe me if I died under mysterious circumstances or whatever. What would a book about my life say about me? How would outsiders interpret my marriage? It's kind of head trippy to think about. 

[bourbon]

The bisexuality should have come in as it goes to motive. It is understandable that Mike would want to hide it from her, that she'd be horrified if she found out, and that an altercation would ensue if she did find out. It was gross, however, that the prosecution seemed to want to introduce it not just to motive but as *character flaw* to prove that if he's so depraved to be hooking up with dudes and looking at gay porn on the internet, it is only one small step away from being depraved enough to kill his wife. All the pearl-clutching and lip pursing from the lipstick prosecutor with the thick accent (can't remember the name) -- they at least wanted to plant those seeds. 

Edited June 23, 2018 by bourbon

[mehtotheworld]

I have to say, when I read that the editor was involved with Michael Peterson, it threw all credibility out the window. The slant toward the defense makes complete sense now. The director should be ashamed to put this out, or to claim that it made no difference. 

And however the defense lawyer thinks he’s coming across, he’s really coming through as the exact opposite of the Making a Murderer defense attorneys (irrespective of the items the defense apparently dropped the ball on). Those guys seemed sincere. This guy just seems like a tool. 

I’m only four episodes in but I’m so annoyed by everyone that I’m not sure I can make it the whole way through. 

Edited June 24, 2018 by mehtotheworld

[blondiek237]

On 6/16/2018 at 9:17 PM, MargotWendice said:

Ah, I stand corrected. Kathleen apparently owned a different house in Forest Hills before moving in with Michael.  
And your final line made me laugh (not that any of this is funny exactly), because I have thought that any woman who gets involved with this guy should be grateful he lives in a one story apartment now. I mean, I have been on this earth for more than 40 years and do not know of one person who died falling down stairs. This guys knows TWO women who died in such a way. What are the odds? 

Unfortunately I know 2 people that died this way.  It happens

[laurakaye]

15 hours ago, mehtotheworld said:

I’m only four episodes in but I’m so annoyed by everyone that I’m not sure I can make it the whole way through. 

I felt the same, but I found it so fascinating to listen to Michael's pompous, grandstanding, pipe-smoking speechifying.  He's like a caricature of himself.  And his first wife Patricia was not much better.  What a pair they must've made back in the day.  I have been listening to the BBC podcast Beyond Reasonable Doubt and I hate to say it but I sometimes chuckle out loud when I hear either of those two speak in interviews.  They seem like two people who absolutely adore the spotlight and strongly believe that everyone should hang on their every word.

[zobot81]

The media thread is practically dead, so I'm posting this here. It's pretty interesting...

https://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2018/06/the-queasy-verdict-of-the-staircase/563603/

[bettername2come]

On 6/24/2018 at 6:58 PM, mehtotheworld said:

And however the defense lawyer thinks he’s coming across, he’s really coming through as the exact opposite of the Making a Murderer defense attorneys (irrespective of the items the defense apparently dropped the ball on). Those guys seemed sincere. This guy just seems like a tool. 

I agree. Although I will say, there was a moment in one of the later episodes (9 or 10) when he was trying to say he couldn't represent Peterson anymore for the appeal or retrial because the case was so exhausting the first time and Peterson didn't want to take no for an answer where I appreciated that even he was trying to distance himself from the guy. I found it amusing. 

The thing that gets me about this is that Michael Peterson, despite me thinking they didn't have enough evidence to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt, certainly seems guilty. And considering how biased the series is towards his side, it seems like they really screwed up. He just comes off pompous and not grieving. He just never seems sad. And the fact that they waited till the last episode to show the "happy moments with Kathleen" montage suggests they had no idea prior how much they had not featured her and how that came across. 

I love that the sister keeps looking towards the camera in her speech.

Also, now I really want to rewatch the Lifetime movie from the daughter's point of view starring Treat Williams.