Did Michael Peterson murder his wife?

wonderwall900

I'm sure by now many of us have read about this case, seen the Documentary or both.

I believe he did it. The documentary was biased to the Defense side of things. To the point that the editor of the series was allegedly dating Peterson.

I'd also believe the Owl Theory before I'd believe his wife got those wounds from a fall down a few steps.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Peterson_(murder_suspect)#Kathleen.27s_death

Hector Bellend

big guilty head on him

who is he?

mad m

There was reasonable doubt....blood splatter patterns etc, the fire poker that mysteriously appeared, the prosecution was a joke but hey they won.

TheValeyard

The detectives still seem damn sure he did it.

biko

Had to google him


Yes|
No|
Maybe|
/care|X

mad m

The forensic FBI agent, good lantern jaysus how in the world was he able to give his expert view after all the crap that came out about him.

wonderwall900

PS - before you vote. Please read up on the case and don't just base your thoughts on Peterson based on the documentary which was highly biased to the Defense.

Just like the Making A Murderer documentary wasn't at all what it seemed once you did some reading up on it.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

wonderwall900 wrote: »

PS - before you vote. Please read up on the case and don't just base your thoughts on Peterson based on the documentary which was highly biased to the Defense.



Just like the Making A Murderer documentary wasn't at all what it seemed once you did some reading up on it.

That's a lot of effort when you couldn't care less.

mad m

The whole investigation as well about his ex wife and the accident in Germany and the exhumation of her body. It’s hard to believe.

wonderwall900

Rebecca Harsh Stenography wrote: »

That's a lot of effort when you couldn't care less.

Why even reply then?

wonderwall900

mad m wrote: »

The whole investigation as well about his ex wife and the accident in Germany and the exhumation of her body. It’s hard to believe.

Plus the fact that when you watched him speak to the press outside the court you get this huge sense of fakeness/acting from him.

mad m

It’s highly interesting to watch “The Staircase”. I’d recommend it.

mad m

wonderwall900 wrote: »

Plus the fact that when you watched him speak to the press outside the court you get this huge sense of fakeness/acting from him.

Yes, very complex person.

mad m

I totally forgot the Owl theory....madness but then again....:rolleyes:

pleas advice

biko wrote: »

Had to google him


Yes|
No|
Maybe|

I don't know,
Can you repeat the question..

wonderwall900

mad m wrote: »

I totally forgot the Owl theory....madness but then again....:rolleyes:

It is crazy but certainly more convincing than her getting those insane wounds from a fall down a few steps.

If I was to go with how much I feel he did it I'd go:

• He did it - 90%
• Owl Theory/intruder/the son did it alone - 5%
• He's innocent - 5%

mad m

wonderwall900 wrote: »

It is crazy but certainly more convincing than her getting those insane wounds from a fall down a few steps.

If i was to go with how much I feel he did it I'd go:

• He did it - 90%
• Owl Theory/intruder/the son did it alone - 5%
• He's innocent - 5%

Seriously though the blood splatter patterns, his own polo shirt I think from memory had none? If the same trial was run today he’d be a free man.

FurBabyMomma

What I don't get is why cause of death of his friend in Germany was charged to murder but he wasn't subsequently charged?

I think there's too much reasonable doubt for a sound conviction tbh.

Giraffe Box

wonderwall900 wrote: »

It is crazy but certainly more convincing than her getting those insane wounds from a fall down a few steps.

If I was to go with how much I feel he did it I'd go:

• He did it - 90%
• Owl Theory/intruder/the son did it alone - 5%
• He's innocent - 5%

If I were to go with my feelings, based on the Netflix series, it would be:

a) She fell down the stairs - 0%
b) It was the Owl wot did it - 0%
c) He killed her (and he murdered the woman in Germany too) - 110%

GingerLily

wonderwall900 wrote: »

I believe he did it. The documentary was biased to the Defense side of things. To the point that the editor of the series was allegedly dating Peterson.


I'd also believe the Owl Theory before I'd believe his wife got those wounds from a fall down a few steps.

They WERE going out for several years - so you cannot trust that documentary.

Also apparently microscopic feather traces found on her scalp would be easily explained by using a feather pillow - I don't trust that theory at all.

He was guilty IMO, too many coincidences otherwise!

wonderwall900

Giraffe Box wrote: »

If I were to go with my feelings, based on the Netflix series, it would be:

a) She fell down the stairs - 0%
b) It was the Owl wot did it - 0%
c) He killed her (and he murdered the woman in Germany too) - 110%

That's good to hear because the documentary was highly biased on Michael's side in what it chose to to leave in and out of the finished product.

wonderwall900

mad m wrote: »

Seriously though the blood splatter patterns, his own polo shirt I think from memory had none? If the same trial was run today he’d be a free man.

He wouldn't. The documentary was highly biased towards Michael in it's editing. Google is your friend

Tilikum17

I found it way too long & most of it was it boring.

I wouldn’t recommend it to anyone.

wonderwall900

Tilikum17 wrote: »

I found it way too long & most of it was it boring.

I wouldn’t recommend it to anyone.

You may well be in the minority on that. Most are hailing it as the best crime documentary series ever or at least up there with The Jinx for that title.

Maybe crime documentaries aren't your thing?

Giraffe Box

I thought it was a fantastic documentary series.
The access that the filmmakers were given to Peterson, his family, and his lawyers was astounding, and made for compelling viewing from the get-go.
It was beautifully made, well-paced and dynamic without ever resorting to trashy tabloid TV techniques.

wonderwall900

Giraffe Box wrote: »

I thought it was a fantastic documentary series.
The access that the filmmakers were given to Peterson, his family, and his lawyers was astounding, and made for compelling viewing from the get-go.
It was beautifully made, well-paced and dynamic without ever resorting to trashy tabloid TV techniques.

Plus this great character

Underground

I think it's important to take this documentary with a pinch of salt. As mentioned, the editor was dating Peterson which was never mentioned in the film. I'm sure they made their best efforts to ensure the documentary was impartial but really it would be impossible to be truly impartial such was their circumstances.

That being said, between this film and Making a Murderer, God help anyone who gets accused of a crime they didn't commit in the US.

Zirconia

I think many people view the documentary and believe he did it based on his apparently detached and uncaring behaviour. I'm not a professional in the fields of mental behaviour, but (based on family experience), I believe he may be sociopathic. If so, this might cast him in a bad light as he's not someone most people can relate to, but I tend to believe on balance he probably didn't murder anyone - he just doesn't appear to show any real emotion about the death of his wife. He also doesn't show a lot of emotion about his own fate!

wonderwall900

Underground wrote: »

That being said, between this film and Making a Murderer, God help anyone who gets accused of a crime they didn't commit in the US.

The makers of Making A Murderer should be shot with their own balls of shíte for how much they twisted the true facts to make Avery look innocent. He is 100% guilty when even the smallest bit of research is done outside of that travesty of a documentary.

Making A Murderer edited and left out so much to twist the real facts of the case that it should be under "Fiction" on Netflix.

MadDog76

Is he guilty? Maybe..... possibly...... maybe not...... probably not.

Should he have been convicted? Definitely not.

Is it just and fair that he is a free man today? Absolutely!

GingerLily

MadDog76 wrote: »

Is he guilty? Maybe..... possibly...... maybe not...... probably not.

Should he have been convicted? Definitely not.

Is it just and fair that he is a free man today? Absolutely!

I wasn't at the trial, I think a lot of the more convincing evidence was not featured in the documentary.

What was really lacking in the documentary was the plausibility of her falling down the stairs - based on previous cases. There must be tonnes of people who fall down the stairs all the time, did they not have similar injuries to his wife?

GingerLily

Also the kids give me the creeps...

Underground

wonderwall900 wrote: »

The makers of Making A Murderer should be shot with their own balls of shíte for how much they twisted the true facts to make Avery look innocent. He is 100% guilty when even the smallest bit of research is done outside of that travesty of a documentary.

Making A Murderer edited and left out so much to twist the real facts of the case that it should be under "Fiction" on Netflix.

Oh yeah, Avery definitely did it. I was referring more to the first stint he did in prison where the police had got the wrong guy.

Underground

GingerLily wrote: »

Also the kids give me the creeps...

Am I the only one who thought the blue streaks in the hair at age 35 was weird? Or am I just wrong? Maybe I'm wrong...

wakka12

Tilikum17 wrote: »

I found it way too long & most of it was it boring.

I wouldn’t recommend it to anyone.

I heard rave reviews and found it very boring too. Interesting case of course..but I don't think worthy of a whole season show. I didn't like making a murderer or whatever it was called either though so maybe the genre just isn't for me

Happy4all

GingerLily wrote: »

Also the kids give me the creeps...

The eldest girl in particular I found very stranged

MadDog76

GingerLily wrote: »

I wasn't at the trial, I think a lot of the more convincing evidence was not featured in the documentary.

What was really lacking in the documentary was the plausibility of her falling down the stairs - based on previous cases. There must be tonnes of people who fall down the stairs all the time, did they not have similar injuries to his wife?

I didn't base my opinion on the documentary ............

Pelvis

wakka12 wrote: »

I heard rave reviews and found it very boring too. Interesting case of course..but I don't think worthy of a whole season show. I didn't like making a murderer or whatever it was called either though so maybe the genre just isn't for me

Ya think?

_Dara_

Apropos of nothing, my favourite murder remains to be 2001’s German cannibalism case. Absolutely mental shit altogether.

wonderwall900

MadDog76 wrote: »

Is he guilty? Maybe..... possibly...... maybe not...... probably not.

Should he have been convicted? Definitely not.

Is it just and fair that he is a free man today? Absolutely!

Could you (and a few others) please do some reading up on the case. What is presented in the documentary are not the full facts.

This Reddit thread the sums up the facts that the director willfully edited out of the documentary: https://www.reddit.com/r/UnresolvedMysteries/comments/4f20u8/kathleen_peterson_michael_peterson_the_staircase/

• Kathleen Peterson worked for a dot com bubble-affected company that was figuratively burning down ($398b to $5b in 2 yrs). Almost all workers had been laid off and she confided in a friend that she worried she would soon follow.
• There was a $1.4 million life insurance policy on Kathleen. She was also the owner of the home, the car and had $350k in pension funds and her 401(K)
• It was said that their (her, actually) net worth was around $2M
• Michael's sons were all heavily in debt. His sons were not even close to being able to afford to pay the interest on their loans - much less reduce the principal
• Either Michael was completely unwilling to discuss this issue with Kathleen or Kathleen had already said no to the idea of helping his sons
• Michael suggested to his sons' mother Patty, whose net worth presumably wasn't 10% of Kathleen's, that she should take out a $30 000 home equity loan to help the boys out
• Michael had no income and had not had any income to speak of for a long time
• There was a bloody shoeprint on the backside of Kathleen's leg matched to the sneakers owned by Michael which were found next to the body
• There was a drop of blood on the inseam of Michael's shorts
• There was blood on the inside of the front door and a drop of blood was found on the porch
• There were only trace amounts of blood in Kathleen's lungs suggesting she might not have coughed up 10 000 drops of blood
• Her arms and hands had contusions (bruises) and cartilage in the front of her neck was fractured
• Despite the colossal injuries to her head and neck area and contusions all over her arms she had zero injury to her knees and legs
• Analysis of her brain revealed the presence of red neurons that suggest she had been alive for 45-120 minutes after her blood loss began - a neuropathologist testified that in his experience 120 minutes was the minimum she was alive for after her initial blood loss
• The two paramedics who responded to the call arrived ten minutes after his initial call and both noted that the blood was very dry when they arrived
• In the week leading up to the death he deleted a ton of files from his computer and after that installed a program designed to make deleting files easier

GingerLily

Guilty!! 😂

wonderwall900

GingerLily wrote: »

Guilty!! ��

100%


Or as I said above, at least 90%. Which is well in the realms of beyond reasonable doubt.

harry Bailey esq

Rebecca Harsh Stenography wrote: »

That's a lot of effort when you couldn't care less.

Agreed. I don't even know who they are. A link in the op probably would have helped.

finglashoop

I cant see any other explanation than he did it.

Logically speaking.

But if he beat her to death with something surely the evidence would be everywhere. On him on her on the surrounding area.

If he came to her aid after she fell i would of expected there to be more evidence on him but they relied on a couple of dots of blood so it must have been some clean up job afterwards.

As for the owl, if it began outside surely he would have heard her original screams. And its so crazy i suppose its hard to make it up.

When the blow poke was named the murder weapon i thought he definitely didnt use that as it looked to be too lightweight to cause that sort of injury then miraculously it turns up with no evidence on it anyway.

I was suprised he was convicted beyond a reasonable doubt.

wonderwall900

finglashoop wrote: »

I was suprised he was convicted beyond a reasonable doubt.

Once again, what was presented in the documentary wasn't all the facts. It wasn't even all that was presented in the courtroom.

Please do some research. Others on this thread desperately need to too.

wonderwall900

There's now a whole subreddit for it https://www.reddit.com/r/TheStaircase

wonderwall900

The Owl Theory



https://www.wired.com/story/the-staircase-netflix-owl-theory/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d3yTgcKhHqU

wakka12

I haven't watched it all the way through so I though the owl thing was just a meme kind of making fun of the defence clutching at straws or something, but I was just looking it up there and it certainly seems plausible

finglashoop

wonderwall900 wrote: »

Once again, what was presented in the documentary wasn't all the facts. It wasn't even all that was presented in the courtroom.

Please do some research. Others on this thread desperately need to too.

Youve taken and quotes one sentence of what i said. And my opinion above is based only on the documentary and Not anything ive read after it. Just the documentary itself.

DEFTLEFTHAND

What's the likelihood of being attacked by an owl.

In all seriousness, I've never heard of such a thing.

Maxpfizer

Kind of an impossible question to answer with anything other than "I don't know".

It's one of those situations where the prosecution did such a bad job that it ought to be impossible for a juror to miss the large amounts of reasonable doubt. Reasonable doubts that have actually been introduced by the prosecution themselves.

I never really understood people in this case, and Making a Murderer too, who can turn round and say "definitely guilty". Hell, the fact that these cases are controversial enough to have successful documentaries made about them implies that they are not your everyday cut and dry, black and white, murder case.

These are really documentaries about the justice system but people turn them into a "did he or didn't he" speculation when the whole point really is that we can't know because of how these people were prosecuted.

The State's case here (and with Making a Murderer) simply doesn't make any sense so it's more interesting for a documentary to look at the flaws in the prosecutions and how they cut corners to make sure they put someone in prison.

Maybe MP did do it but how many other people are out there in prison for crimes they didn't commit? How many times have prosecutors brought very dodgy cases to court and the jury has voted "guilty" and some innocent person has gone to prison as a result.

I know for a fact I wouldn't want the "definitely guilty" people on a jury when the person is actually innocent and the prosecution is really f-ing dodgy.