The Staircase

[larapu2000]

2 hours ago, bettername2come said:

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.

Chace Crawford as one of the hot sons, please.

[heatherchandler]

11 hours ago, larapu2000 said:

Chace Crawford as one of the hot sons, please.

There was a scene, maybe in episide 6 or 7, where the hot son Todd was in the background, and he was kind of blurred out.  I was like - HELLO! get him into focus, he is a treat for the eyes!

[AZChristian]

15 hours ago, bettername2come said:

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

Just found that on youtube.  Will pull it up on our living room smart TV when I have time to watch it.  Obsessed, I am.

[Glory]

21 hours ago, AZChristian said:

Just found that on youtube.  Will pull it up on our living room smart TV when I have time to watch it.  Obsessed, I am.

This is a real thing!? On it! 

[AZChristian]

6 minutes ago, Glory said:

This is a real thing!? On it! 

Yes . . . it's from around 2007.

[IDreamofJoaquin]

Todd is dreamy.  Not just the face but his voice is incredible.  I don't trust the family's mental capabilities though (dad, mom, brother all strange). 

I wonder if this would have turned out differently if not for the documentary? People weren't being themselves and wanted to yuk it up for the cameras. Some of the things they laughed at were completely inappropriate. Like the dude at Elizabeth's grave "I've never brought one back up before...hahahah".

Edited June 29, 2018 by IDreamofJoaquin

[spankydoll]

Are people coming away from viewing this documentary thinking that Peterson is innocent? I certainly am not. And his lawyer is a pip - still acting like the brilliant genius when he LOST that case. 

[heatherchandler]

I actually do think he may be innocent.  I go back and forth.  I am definitely not convinced he is guilty.  I remember seeing this years ago when it was on Sundance, and I remember thinking then that he may not be guilty.

[orza]

I see the series as the story of one man's journey through a judicial system that was at best inadequate and at worst corrupt. Everyone involved in the case seemed to be either inept, shady, self-serving or all of the above. It's ok that Kathleen Peterson was not the focus because the show was not about her.

The medical examiner and blood splatter expert were both shady.

The judge seemed like he didn't know what he was doing. He should never have allowed anything about Elizabeth Ratliff's death to be entered into evidence. There is no reason to believe the German medical examiner and police got it wrong. The ME in Durham had a vested interest in ensuring that ER's cause of death exactly matched her conclusions about Kathleen Peterson's death. She even went so far as to exhume ER's body and transort it 1200 miles instead of letting the local ME do an autopsy to ensure she got the result she wanted. Everything about her results is suspect. Barbara, the nanny, was also shady. Her testimony did not match up with the German police report. She claimed there was blood everywhere and admitted that she went up and down the stairs, stepping over Elizabeth, before the police arrived. Why would she do that if not to hide something?

The lady prosecutor spewed a lot of inflammatory bigoted rhetoric to sway the jury in the absence of hard evidence.

David Rudolf just seemed to be not very good at his job. The ill-fitting suits suggested to me that he was not a high-powered defense lawyer. If he couldn't even afford a decent suit that fit him for court appearances his practice was probably not doing so well.

I don't know if Michael is guilty or not. However, I tend to think he is not. The owl theory is not as outlandish as it may seem at first blush. I think it is also possible that Michael took the blame to protect one of his sons from what might have been manslaughter, not murder. He thought he would be acquitted but once he was found guilty there was no going back and admitting the truth because then they both would go to prison. Todd distanced himself from the family after Michael went to prison while Clayton and his wife remained very devoted to him, visiting Michael in prison and giving him a home after he got out. Both behaviors could be interpreted as that of a person with something to hide.

[mehtotheworld]

I was considering restarting this series to see if I could finish it, but ended up rewatching the first few episodes of Trial and Error instead. It truly is brilliant how they incorporated aspects of this case into this show (though Larry was so much more sympathetic than Peterson). The ending is even more hilarious now that I know more about this case. Had no clue there was any real life inspiration when I first watched it. 

Now I wonder where the Trial and Error showrunners stand on the Peterson being guilty or innocent question. 

[Clanstarling]

On 6/10/2018 at 2:17 PM, Calamity Jane said:

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.  

While Peterson was off putting in so many ways, his first wife was so very, very strange. I don't think I could stand to be around her for more than a few minutes. The way she talks just bugs completely. So, those of you in the know, did Peterson get custody of all four kids when they split, or were the boys grown by that time?

On 6/11/2018 at 8:24 PM, larapu2000 said:

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..

For most of the episodes, I found Kathleen's sister a bit annoying (think she reminds me of someone I know). But oddly, in that last harangue in the courtroom, after they called her crazy, I finally connected with her pain and thought - of course she's over the top, who wouldn't be if you believed your sister was horribly murdered?

On 6/13/2018 at 3:17 PM, amazinglybored said:

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

Having had a father who smoked a pipe for awhile, what bugged me is that he couldn't be bothered to tamp down the tobacco correctly. There was that strand of tobacco hanging from it.

On 6/20/2018 at 10:02 PM, 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 defense did not want to put MP on the stand.   

 

It was intriguing, wasn't it? It was so clearly on his side, and yet he was pretty cringeworthy all the way through.

I did not like Michael Peterson, even so I don't know that I think he was guilty (on the other hand, I wouldn't be surprised if he were). Even skeevy guys can be innocent. I thought his 911 call rang true - though little else did. Especially that at the end he more or less says Kathleen knew nothing about his bisexuality.

That being said, I am surprised he was convicted in the first place. There was room for reasonable doubt, and the German death shouldn't have been introduced, much less have the body exhumed AND examined by the prosecution's medical examiner. And of course Deaver is an entirely different story.

I found the original episodes fascinating. I never heard about this case. But the last three were kind of a trudge, in my opinion. I would have preferred some ending credits that just said what happened - like in the movies, because it was just too much same old same old.

Well, I'm off to read those linked articles.

Edited June 30, 2018 by Clanstarling

[Enigma X]

I know the story and believe the guy is guilty.

 

I normally love crime documentaries, but this bored me to tears. I never finished.

[Pindrop]

9 hours ago, Clanstarling said:

*snip*

It was intriguing, wasn't it? It was so clearly on his side, and yet he was pretty cringeworthy all the way through.

I did not like Michael Peterson, even so I don't know that I think he was guilty (on the other hand, I wouldn't be surprised if he were). Even skeevy guys can be innocent. I thought his 911 call rang true - though little else did. Especially that at the end he more or less says Kathleen knew nothing about his bisexuality.

That being said, I am surprised he was convicted in the first place. There was room for reasonable doubt, and the German death shouldn't have been introduced, much less have the body exhumed AND examined by the prosecution's medical examiner. And of course Deaver is an entirely different story.

I found the original episodes fascinating. I never heard about this case. But the last three were kind of a trudge, in my opinion. I would have preferred some ending credits that just said what happened - like in the movies, because it was just too much same old same old.

Well, I'm off to read those linked articles.

 

I am fairly convinced of his guilt, despite the flaws in the prosecution case. Firstly the documentary was clearly cherry-picking the positive (from MP's perspective) and filtering out the negative, which led me to read a little more around the case and the evidence that was skimmed over or hand-waved. Secondly, the entire case for the defence rested upon stretching the definition of reasonable doubt to its broadest extreme and flipping the burden of proof disingenuously; they were essentially saying "you can't prove a negative, therefore innocent" (or for example "we're asserting that fairies did it aided by the spaghetti monster, and the prosecution must prove us wrong in order for reasonable doubt to disappear") and by that logic every criminal would be on the streets. 

Edited July 1, 2018 by Pindrop

[Clanstarling]

6 hours ago, Pindrop said:

I am fairly convinced of his guilt, despite the flaws in the prosecution case. Firstly the documentary was clearly cherry-picking the positive (from MP's perspective) and filtering out the negative, which led me to read a little more around the case and the evidence that was skimmed over or hand-waved. Secondly, the entire case for the defence rested upon stretching the definition of reasonable doubt to its broadest extreme and flipping the burden of proof disingenuously; they were essentially saying "you can't prove a negative, therefore innocent" (or for example "we're asserting that fairies did it aided by the spaghetti monster, and the prosecution must prove us wrong in order for reasonable doubt to disappear") and by that logic every criminal would be on the streets. 

Oh, that's very true, certainly. I don't know much about the case in general, and I was aware of the cherry picking. I personally don't think the stretch was as bad as your example, and thought their blood spatter guy was far more convincing (I don't know about this case, but I've read a lot about blood spatter over the years). On the other hand, we didn't see the hyoid/strangulation evidence.

I'm not sure I agree with your point about the burden of proof - it's always on the prosecution and in theory, the defense doesn't have to come up with anything. I don't think they were disingenuous about the burden of proof, it seems a fairly standard defense.

I am not completely convinced of his guilt - not because of the trial as much as the 911 call. But I wouldn't blink if it was somehow proved that he did it.

I was surprised, after reading a little more about this, that the court didn't have a problem going forward with Hardin, as Peterson had strongly criticized him in his articles for the paper. Seems like it might have been some need (or at least plea) for him to recuse himself, or ask for a change of venue. But if the defense even commented or complained, I missed it.

There was this moment when they filmed Hardin, it was a blink and miss it moment, where he's talking about the case (early on, I think), and at the end of it, just for a second, this little smirk flashes on his face. He was taking real pleasure in whatever it was (I forget the topic). So I found him as completely off putting as Peterson.

[Pindrop]

2 hours ago, Clanstarling said:

I'm not sure I agree with your point about the burden of proof - it's always on the prosecution and in theory, the defense doesn't have to come up with anything. I don't think they were disingenuous about the burden of proof, it seems a fairly standard defense.

*snip*

I probably explained my point badly. Attacking the credibility of the prosecution's expert witnesses, their methodology and their stated version of events were all on the nose, and identified a potential miscarriage and major flaws in the system. 

The problem is that (as I understand it, and unlike Britain where expert witnesses are non-partisan), you can essentially pay a shill to say whatever you want them to say in the US justice system (I may be wrong here though, happy to be corrected). As such we had the slap-stick comedy version of events where people kept falling up and down stairs then slipping in their own blood and repeatedly landing head first against the wall, which frankly belonged in a Naked Gun movie (ahem, probably a bad choice of film). The flipping of the burden of proof came where, having concocted this version of events, the documentary then posited that the prosecution failed to disprove it. They may as well have said that the prosecution failed to disprove there is a teapot in orbit around the sun for its relevance. The fact is that the prosecution, in the mind of the jurors, did prove their version beyond reasonable doubt, they are not then required to disprove every possible alternative, however remote. I tend to err towards Occam's Razor. 

That said, if evidence was incorrectly gathered and that was central to their case, then it points towards a potential miscarriage. The issue I have here is that the documentary overstated the significance of the questionable evidence, and completely failed to mention other evidence that strongly indicated MP's guilt.  

Edited July 1, 2018 by Pindrop

[Clanstarling]

3 hours ago, Pindrop said:

I probably explained my point badly. Attacking the credibility of the prosecution's expert witnesses, their methodology and their stated version of events were all on the nose, and identified a potential miscarriage and major flaws in the system. 

The problem is that (as I understand it, and unlike Britain where expert witnesses are non-partisan), you can essentially pay a shill to say whatever you want them to say in the US justice system (I may be wrong here though, happy to be corrected). As such we had the slap-stick comedy version of events where people kept falling up and down stairs then slipping in their own blood and repeatedly landing head first against the wall, which frankly belonged in a Naked Gun movie (ahem, probably a bad choice of film). The flipping of the burden of proof came where, having concocted this version of events, the documentary then posited that the prosecution failed to disprove it. They may as well have said that the prosecution failed to disprove there is a teapot in orbit around the sun for its relevance. The fact is that the prosecution, in the mind of the jurors, did prove their version beyond reasonable doubt, they are not then required to disprove every possible alternative, however remote. I tend to err towards Occam's Razor. 

That said, if evidence was incorrectly gathered and that was central to their case, then it points towards a potential miscarriage. The issue I have here is that the documentary overstated the significance of the questionable evidence, and completely failed to mention other evidence that strongly indicated MP's guilt.  

I'm interested in how expert witnesses are kept non-partisan in Britain. Seems like if they regularly work trials, they'd have more contact with the State (as it were) which might make them more inclined to come up with results that support the prosecution.

I agree the paid expert system is flawed, and not having sat on a jury of any note, or watched an unedited trail,  I don't know how I'd respond to conflicting testimony.

Durham had an opportunity to have a non-partisan expert opinion with the autopsy of the girls' mother. On the surface of it, choosing not to do it that way, made me question the results.

And yes, the documentary certainly was cut in an extremely partisan way, and I did question the gaps (before I knew there was more damning evidence). I do find it amusing, given their hero cut, MP still comes off as questionable at best.

[Pindrop]

30 minutes ago, Clanstarling said:

I'm interested in how expert witnesses are kept non-partisan in Britain. Seems like if they regularly work trials, they'd have more contact with the State (as it were) which might make them more inclined to come up with results that support the prosecution.

I agree the paid expert system is flawed, and not having sat on a jury of any note, or watched an unedited trail,  I don't know how I'd respond to conflicting testimony.

Durham had an opportunity to have a non-partisan expert opinion with the autopsy of the girls' mother. On the surface of it, choosing not to do it that way, made me question the results.

And yes, the documentary certainly was cut in an extremely partisan way, and I did question the gaps (before I knew there was more damning evidence). I do find it amusing, given their hero cut, MP still comes off as questionable at best.

I've worked as an expert witness in civil cases occasionally as part of my job. It is odd, because you are paid by one party, but you sign a statement expressing that you are working impartially for the court. The main reason you do so is that your reputation and professional status are on the line if you fail to do so, and yes, your opinion may be detrimental to the party who engaged you. I should add that it does prevent one party frivolously engaging an "expert witness" to steel-man a weak position, and as a result saves cost and time.  

Edited July 1, 2018 by Pindrop

[DiabLOL]

This is about the last three eps. I don't know if I imagined it or what but I could SWEAR that he once again addressed the issue of his bisexuality/hiring male escorts etc. and he was mumbling basically that she didn't know about this but he's sure that they could have talked it out and it would have been perfectly fine with her. 

[Clanstarling]

15 minutes ago, DiabLOL said:

This is about the last three eps. I don't know if I imagined it or what but I could SWEAR that he once again addressed the issue of his bisexuality/hiring male escorts etc. and he was mumbling basically that she didn't know about this but he's sure that they could have talked it out and it would have been perfectly fine with her. 

yep, he did. A bit of a reversal.

[parrotfeathers]

I don't know for sure if he killed her or not, but he seemed rather creepy to me.

[ElectricBoogaloo]

Featurette: David Rudolf discusses injustice

[Erh3d]

I found it so interesting how many “characters” appeared in this show and the Duke Lacrosse show. Which makes Nifongs actions with Duke that much more alarming considering this had all gone down in Durham with DNA. I found The Staircase painfully boring. 

[QQQQ]

I'm halfway through episode 10. He's looking/moving like Steve McQueen in Papillon after solitary confinement. 

[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.

Read the book over the weekend (thanks, @AZChristian)!  There's a wealth of information in the book that wasn't shown in the documentary.  For example, I didn't know that both of Michael's sons were jerks just like their dad.  Patricia Peterson seems about as brainwashed as the Ratliff girls.  Caitlin basically lost her entire family, except for her biological dad and her aunts.  Michael was a lying pontificater from way back.  What a family.

 

On 6/19/2018 at 6:46 AM, doesntworkonwood said:

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

I also listened to the entire podcast over the course of a couple of weeks and several very long walks. :)  Highly recommended.

And with that, I think I have been saturated with Michael Peterson's smug, condescending voice in my head for a while.

[laurakaye]

On 6/29/2018 at 6:45 PM, orza said:

I don't know if Michael is guilty or not. However, I tend to think he is not. The owl theory is not as outlandish as it may seem at first blush. I think it is also possible that Michael took the blame to protect one of his sons from what might have been manslaughter, not murder. He thought he would be acquitted but once he was found guilty there was no going back and admitting the truth because then they both would go to prison. Todd distanced himself from the family after Michael went to prison while Clayton and his wife remained very devoted to him, visiting Michael in prison and giving him a home after he got out. Both behaviors could be interpreted as that of a person with something to hide.

Regarding the owl theory, my first thought was that if an owl attacked Kathleen, wouldn't there have been a lot more feathers around the crime scene?  I'm picturing an owl on the attack, wings beating like mad - and if I recall, there were two feathers found on her, but it seems like whether the owl attack was inside the house or outside, more feathers would've been found in or around the house.

As for Todd - having read the book "The Perfect Husband," I see Todd in a very different light than how he was portrayed in the documentary.  Todd was at the house the night of the murder for about two hours (although he was there with a girlfriend).  I get a gut feeling that Todd and Michael were covering for each other, so what Orza said above rings true for me.

Edited July 9, 2018 by laurakaye

[AZChristian]

8 minutes ago, laurakaye said:

Regarding the owl theory, my first thought was that if an owl attacked Kathleen, wouldn't there have been a lot more feathers around the crime scene?  I'm picturing an owl on the attack, wings beating like mad - and if I recall, there were two feathers found on her, but it seems like whether the owl attack was inside the house or outside, more feathers would've been found in or around the house.

Bingo!!!!

[QQQQ]

Lack of feathers... has anyone considered the culprit could be a bald eagle?!

[AZChristian]

5 minutes ago, QQQQ said:

Lack of feathers... has anyone considered the culprit could be a bald eagle?!

Made me LOL.

[Lisin]

[IDreamofJoaquin]

Ugh I'm almost finished with this.  It has really lagged for me but I am curious to read 'The Perfect Husband' now.   

Both Martha and Margaret seemed to have been able to have productive lives.  That's quite a lot of trauma to go through......losing so many parents.  And I wonder how decent of a mother figure that Patty was.  The girls mentioned Kathleen as being their first real mom who cared for them and as they said "brushed their hair" so I wonder what was going on before Kathleen was in the picture.  Margaret was an awkward looking teen but grew into her looks as an adult.  

[Janc]

Freda Black, a prosecutor in the original trial, was found dead last weekend....  a staircase was not involved, as far as we know.

Edited July 31, 2018 by Janc

[Janc]

Freda Black, a prosecutor in the original trial, was found dead last weekend.

[Clanstarling]

31 minutes ago, Janc said:

Freda Black, a prosecutor in the original trial, was found dead last weekend.

Well, now I feel bad that I came to the forum to recommend Michelle Wolf's "The Husband Did it" .

Edited July 31, 2018 by Clanstarling

[bilgistic]

3 hours ago, Clanstarling said:

Well, now I feel bad that I came to the forum to recommend Michelle Wolf's "The Husband Did it" .

Ha! That's perfect! Don't feel bad; most of us believe the husband did it.

Freda Black was a troubled woman.

[atlantaloves]

Oh man, he really really really did it, in fact he did it twice.  So you guys do not recommend this series, I have seen the old Sundance series which was fantastic. Advise please, thanks! 

[bilgistic]

The first eight episodes are the original series. Episodes nine through 13 are new.

[KnoxForPres]

On 7/31/2018 at 9:16 AM, Clanstarling said:

Well, now I feel bad that I came to the forum to recommend Michelle Wolf's "The Husband Did it" .

That was hilarious. True laugh out loud funny.

https://web.archive.org/web/20060205042751/http://www.justicemag.com/daily/item/1186.html

Ive never pasted a link so I hope that works.  It’s an account from MPs sister I found on  reddit.  She thinks he’s guilty.

[Clanstarling]

1 hour ago, KnoxForPres said:

That was hilarious. True laugh out loud funny.

https://web.archive.org/web/20060205042751/http://www.justicemag.com/daily/item/1186.html

Ive never pasted a link so I hope that works.  It’s an account from MPs sister I found on  reddit.  She thinks he’s guilty.

Wow, that was really interesting. Thanks.

[AZChristian]

3 hours ago, KnoxForPres said:

That was hilarious. True laugh out loud funny.

https://web.archive.org/web/20060205042751/http://www.justicemag.com/daily/item/1186.html

Ive never pasted a link so I hope that works.  It’s an account from MPs sister I found on  reddit.  She thinks he’s guilty.

Fascinating read.  Thank you for sharing that.

ETA:  It says a lot about who Michael is that he accused Caitlyn and Ann of being "greedy" because they weren't willing to let him have a large share of Kathleen's insurance money and his father's money to pay for his defense.  Sure, he offered to give them a lien against his house as security . . . but only an idiot would think there would be anything left after the lawyers got their chunk of any value of the house.

Edited August 18, 2018 by AZChristian

[KnoxForPres]

On 8/18/2018 at 10:08 AM, AZChristian said:

Fascinating read.  Thank you for sharing that.

ETA:  It says a lot about who Michael is that he accused Caitlyn and Ann of being "greedy" because they weren't willing to let him have a large share of Kathleen's insurance money and his father's money to pay for his defense.  Sure, he offered to give them a lien against his house as security . . . but only an idiot would think there would be anything left after the lawyers got their chunk of any value of the house.

 

Yes it  shows a lot, indeed. I take issue with him finding Caitlyn greedy especially.  And while there are 2 sides always I thoght the sister seemed a reliable narrator of events.  

Remeber when his family came to visit him in jail (I think it was when the cutest  and always smiling baby was there)....anyway MP was dealing with health issues and seemed 100 years old. He told the cameras not to film him going down the stairs. And emphasized a few times “don’t film me going down the stairs!”  How unaware can one man be?  I’d try to never talk about stairs or staircases at all if I were him. Much less in a joking manner. 

I don’t even like how he plays with his grandchildren. 

This is just a sidebar with no relevance but I have seen the MP case on multiple shows as I watch a lot of ID and stuff like that. All these years I thought Elizabeth was his wife. I’m sure it was not  presented that way and I either didn’t pay attention or who knows but I never knew a family friend til the staircase. 

And speaking of wives- Patty!  What a wackadoo. Her speech and word choice alone!  This has no bearing again but I wish I knew more about Kathleen bc if she was super normal and successful why on Earth would  she find MP marriage material. He’s creep AF full stop for me. Patty I get- she’s the female equivalent of him. 

Margaret and to a lesser degree Martha truly do seem brainwashed. As said above the way they sit around and gaze at him with awe and wonder and randomly yell “I love you dad!”.  Those girls have been through so much this is awful but can I go on record and say Margaret annoys me to no end. 

To those that say she looks like him I agree  and have not seen a valid source report this  (nor researched) but on message boards etc people obsessed with this case say with authority DNA tests have been done and no relation.

So much more could be said but when you watch a long docuseries (in shamefully fast speed- get a life Knox!) it results in me rambling and I’ll leave it there...for now!

Edited August 19, 2018 by KnoxForPres

[Nothankyou]

 I feel the verdict was based heavily on the prosecution's definition of what a loving relationship is. In this day and age people have all sorts of relationships and for the prosecution to assume they know what kind of  relationship they had based on sexual encounters and not first hand accounts is wrong and not very solid argument. Also the daughter of the poor woman believed in Michael until.she found out he was bisexual. At that point she hated him,not after her mom doed,but after she found out he was bi and that's a little prejudice. It is scary she decided he was guilty after findingout his sexual orientation. And of the prosecution was saying the wife got a phonecall found out he was cheating and they got into a fight that is called a crime of passion not first degree premeditated murder. also the fact that the blood was dried when the EMT arrived does not prove he killed anybody. In fact it proves he called aFter a  length of time as he said he was outside and came in to find her in the stair well. Again the blood, drinking will make your blood thinner..meaning alot more blood from the body when it is hurt. If he came up to a bleeding wife who had been sitting there for a while there could have been dried blood and fresh blood that would have been all over him if he was holding her.

Edited October 26, 2018 by Nothankyou

[Dots And Stripes]

I started out thinking "guilty" but switched really quickly when they dug up the body of the woman from Germany. It was a huge red flag for me that they wouldn't let the autopsy be done where she was buried and needed the states own expert to do it. Not only that, but the findings were way too heavy handed. It seemed like the prosecution was overplaying their hand there and manufacturing the evidence they wanted. At one point, a prosecutor argued that maybe Michael Peterson had seen the fall in Germany and basically used that to make Kathleen's death look like something that would be ruled an accident. 

I also was expecting to hear more witnesses talk about how they had seen cracks in the marriage. I was waiting to hear more about how Michael had been complaining about her nagging him or maybe him or Kathleen telling friends that the marriage was in trouble. I would expect to hear more of that if Michael did it.

The other thing I can't shake is the blow poke. We know law enforcement knew it was not the blow poke because they found it early on and could see there was no blood or sign of damage. Not only is that a major Brady violation, but the prosecution relied on it because there were things about the death that they couldn't explain otherwise. If they thought Michael had committed murder without a weapon, they would have said so. They also didn't think it was an ordinary blunt object. They needed an object with the characteristics of the blow poke, but we know it wasn't the blow poke. What else could it have been? There is the reasonable doubt. 

[Lisin]

 

[DoubleUTeeEff]

Harrison Ford to Star in ‘The Staircase’ Series Adaptation for Annapurna TV

[OllieSocks]

I’m rewatching the first ep and at the end they’re doing that test where they play the tape recording of a ladies’ voice screaming “Help! Someone help me!” and my demented brain had the fleeting thought that it would have been much funnier if they had used the Beatles’ song Help! 🤦‍♀️

[Calamity Jane]

I think I have landed, as I did with Adnan Sayed, on the belief that he probably did it, but that he should not have been convicted on the evidence presented. The prosecution leaned too hard on supposition, history, and creepiness, none of which should be considered evidence of guilt in that trial. I’m very conflicted about that kind of outcome because it’s satisfying to think a murderer was punished, but our system is supposed to prefer many guilty persons going free over an innocent person being convicted. The whole trial seemed stacked against the defendant in this case. 

Still open to being persuaded either way by actual evidence, though. The main point remains that many lives were ruined or deeply affected by Kathleen’s death. 

[Milburn Stone]

On 1/2/2020 at 6:37 PM, Calamity Jane said:

I think I have landed, as I did with Adnan Sayed, on the belief that he probably did it, but that he should not have been convicted on the evidence presented. The prosecution leaned too hard on supposition, history, and creepiness, none of which should be considered evidence of guilt in that trial...

I'm more familiar with the fictionalization on HBO (have only seen a couple episodes of the documentary), but the HBO version led me to think the prosecution's forensic evidence was basically fake. (Like, their "expert" had to perform 5000 tests to get 1 that supported their theory.) Is that in the documentary as well?