The Staircase [youtube][netflix] **Spoilers**

Boom_Bap

This docu-series has been rattling around youtube as a True Crime favorite for a number of years and has recently been revamped and updated on Netflix.

The case revolves around the death of Kathleen Peterson whose body was found bloody at the bottom of a staircase in her home.

The person arrested for the crime was her husband Michael Peterson.

The series follows the lead up to the trial where the evidence is examined along with the 911 call. New unexpected events unfold such as the discovery that his former wife's friend died in similar circumstances, his sex life is opened up, his family dynamics are dissected.

We get to see how both the defense team builds the case and looks at what they expect the prosecution to focus on. One major area of focus is the exhumation and new autopsy of Michael's friend who died in Germany and how he adopted her children. The circumstances of her death are extremely similar to Kathleen, and Michael was one of the first people on the scene.

Since the show has aired, there are also additional theories being put forward, on such theory is 'The Owl Theory' and this one seems to get a lot of traction from the side that belief Michael is innocent.

Not only do we get to see the case unfolding, but we also get to see Michael's demeanor, how he copes with everything that is going on, how he processes the evidence that is presented and even some of the coaching that he gets for being on the stand.

I personally am fascinated by this case and would love to hear on the evidence that was provided, how the defense team focused their case and how they held their head in their hands once some of the 'things' came to light. Is there anything that they could have done differently?

J Mysterio

I have to say that I am leanining towards the Owl Theory. Whats interesting though is that the defence wouldn't touch it with a barge pole.

Kingp35

I really enjoyed this series as well although I haven't seen the Netflix reboot yet. It's unique in how much access the filmmakers had to document all aspects of the case, including how Michael was coached etc.

There was a follow up documentary released in 2013 that not a lot of people seem to know about called The Staircase 2. Here's a link to the IMDB page https://www.imdb.com/title/tt2257602/?ref_=rt_li_tt

Personally I have changed my mind numerous times on whether he is guilty or not. I can't seem to finalise an opinion.

Boom_Bap

J Mysterio wrote: »

I have to say that I am leanining towards the Owl Theory. Whats interesting though is that the defence wouldn't touch it with a barge pole.

The prosecution ruled it out because an owl couldn't possibly hold a blow poke. :pac:


My problem with the owl theory is that surely there would be some evidence of an owl haven been there. No feathers, no claw marks on the stairwell. No poop!
Surely an owl would have somehow touched or smeared the blood as well

retro:electro

The Owl Theory is up there with one of the most ridiculous things I’ve ever heard. Kathleen’s autopsy showed she had crushed thyroid cartilage, an injury that is consistent only with car crashes or manual strangulation.
Has anyone ever heard of Peterson stating what on Earth he was doing for the two hours between last seeing Kathleen alive and dialling 911? When first responders arrived on the scene they were distracted shocked and horrified to find Kathleen in such a state with litres blood that had been dried in around her for hours. Not once does Michael mention the word “blood” on the phone to 911, why? If I found my partner in such a state, the first thing I would assume is that he had just been murdered, not that he had fallen. Who thinks that?? And that’s before we even get to the woman in Germany who sustained the exact same injuries. The defence rely too much on the fact that Deaver lied on the stand but they also fail to acknowledge that several other blood spatter experts came to the exact same conclusions as him.
Occam’s razor: the simplest solution is usually the right one.

Boom_Bap

I think that the son is involved somehow.
He arrived quickly on scene, is adamant of his fathers innocence and seems very calculated in everything that he is saying.


I think that he arrived on the scene after getting rid of some evidence before the call was made to 911.
He also moves miles away so that he is not in the docu much.

retro:electro

Yeah very strange the son arrived on the scene at 2am in the morning when he didn’t even live there anymore. He definitely knows more than he’s letting on. I find all of the kids strange tbh. There’s one, the blonde girl, I’m sure she knows what’s up. There’s hints of it when she speaks, but maybe she can’t even let her mind go there.
Having said all of that, I still don’t think he got a fair trial, and I’m not even 100% sure I’d find him guilty. There was enough doubt planted to secure an acquittal. But he’s a strange man. Definite anger issues there that he tries to hide by playing the lovable family man.

d1980

David Rudolph is doing a tour in November in Ireland I believe. Doing a night in limerick not sure if else where.

Danjamin1

retro:electro wrote: »

The Owl Theory is up there with one of the most ridiculous things I’ve ever heard. Kathleen’s autopsy showed she had crushed thyroid cartilage, an injury that is consistent only with car crashes or manual strangulation.
Has anyone ever heard of Peterson stating what on Earth he was doing for the two hours between last seeing Kathleen alive and dialling 911? When first responders arrived on the scene they were distracted shocked and horrified to find Kathleen in such a state with litres blood that had been dried in around her for hours. Not once does Michael mention the word “blood” on the phone to 911, why? If I found my partner in such a state, the first thing I would assume is that he had just been murdered, not that he had fallen. Who thinks that?? And that’s before we even get to the woman in Germany who sustained the exact same injuries. The defence rely too much on the fact that Deaver lied on the stand but they also fail to acknowledge that several other blood spatter experts came to the exact same conclusions as him.
Occam’s razor: the simplest solution is usually the right one.

So are you of the opinion that she was murdered by Michael beyond a reasonable doubt? Whether you believe he did it or not is largely irrelevant to the case that was brought before the courts but they didn't have sufficient evidence to convict him of murder in my opinion. The blowpoke theory seems as ridiculous as the owl theory considering there was no evidence of trauma to the skull or brain. I can't explain how she died and I certainly don't know if Michael Peterson killed Kathleen but based on the evidence that was presented in the documentary I don't know how any juror could say for certain that he as guilty.

As for Germany, the trial judge himself said in retrospect he shouldn't have let that be brought in. The autopsy in Germany attributed the cause of death to a brain haemorrhage. What was the reason for moving the body all the way from Texas to North Carolina when an autopsy could have been performed on the exhumed body in Texas by an impartial pathologist? if I remember correctly the prosecutions pathologist categorically stated her opinion that the death could only have been caused by murder, not bludgeoning, not beating, not assault, murder. Is that possible to tell from an autopsy?

I'm going to the audience with David Rudolf in November, looking forward to it!

retro:electro

Danjamin1 wrote: »

So are you of the opinion that she was murdered by Michael beyond a reasonable doubt?

Ive already stated that although I believe he’s responsible for her death, I believe enough doubt was planeted to secure an acquittal.

Danjamin1 wrote: »

The blowpoke theory seems as ridiculous as the owl theory considering there was no evidence of trauma to the skull or brain.

I never said I believed the blowpoke theory. In fact I don’t believe he used anything at all only his bare hands and the foot of the steps.

I'm going to the audience with David Rudolf in November, looking forward to it!

Same. Hope he allows questions!

Danjamin1

retro:electro wrote: »

Ive already stated that although I believe he’s responsible for her death, I believe enough doubt was planeted to secure an acquittal.

Yep, missed that, must've been typing out my own post when you sent that one in

retro:electro wrote: »

I never said I believed the blowpoke theory. In fact I don’t believe he used anything at all only his bare hands and the foot of the steps.

Was just pointing out that a ridiculous theory isn't necessarily unusable. I'd be surprised if anyone believes the blowpoke theory, even the prosecutors.

retro:electro wrote: »

Same. Hope he allows questions!

I think I saw something online where you can send questions in advance? Could have imagined it but would be great to get one in!

J Mysterio

Boom_Bap wrote: »

The prosecution ruled it out because an owl couldn't possibly hold a blow poke. :pac:


My problem with the owl theory is that surely there would be some evidence of an owl haven been there. No feathers, no claw marks on the stairwell. No poop!
Surely an owl would have somehow touched or smeared the blood as well

There was actually a microscopic feather found on her consistent with an owl. An expert also said the marks were consistent with an owl attack. It was also shown that owls inhabited nearby trees: its a leafy area.

GingerLily

J Mysterio wrote: »

There was actually a microscopic feather found on her consistent with an owl. An expert also said the marks were consistent with an owl attack. It was also shown that owls inhabited nearby trees: its a leafy area.

I've also heard that feather is consistent with feathers found in pillows!

J Mysterio

GingerLily wrote: »

I've also heard that feather is consistent with feathers found in pillows!

Do you think that someone would actually plant a feather from a pillow to pursue an owl attack defence? Seems unlikely.

The Owl Theory did not surface untill someone unconnected to the defence postulated it and it was never used by the defence.

GingerLily

J Mysterio wrote: »

Do you think that someone would actually plant a feather from a pillow to pursue an owl attack defence? Seems unlikely.

The Owl Theory did not surface untill someone unconnected to the defence postulated it.

No I think Kathleen might have rested her head on a pillow

retro:electro

J Mysterio wrote: »

Do you think that someone would actually plant a feather from a pillow to pursue an owl attack defence? Seems unlikely.

The Owl Theory did not surface untill someone unconnected to the defence postulated it and it was never used by the defence.

If we are to believe that she was sitting outside drinking for a short period before her death, then it’s not a stretch to assume a feather could have fallen from a tree and landed in her hair. The microscopic feathers were found in her own hairs clasped in her hands. It’s not uncommon for people to pull out their hair when they’re being attacked/dying.
If she was attacked by an owl in such a ferocious manner, there would have been feathers everywhere- as other vicious attacks have shown. They’re extremely messy. Also, I *think* owls are incapable of crushing thyroid cartilage in a manner that strongly suggests manual strangulation.

J Mysterio

retro:electro wrote: »

If we are to believe that she was sitting outside drinking for a short period before her death, then it’s not a stretch to assume a feather could have fallen from a tree and landed in her hair. The microscopic feathers were found in her own hairs clasped in her hands. It’s not uncommon for people to pull out their hair when they’re being attacked/dying.
If she was attacked by an owl in such a ferocious manner, there would have been feathers everywhere- as other vicious attacks have shown. They’re extremely messy. Also, I *think* owls are incapable of crushing thyroid cartilage in a manner that strongly suggests manual strangulation.

Im not saying the Owl Theory is a definite, but its a decent theory im interested in.

I would need to look at the evidence of the thyroid cartilage again, but I would imagine this could have happened by falling with enough force directly against a step for example.

retro:electro

J Mysterio wrote: »

Im not saying the Owl Theory is a definite, but its a decent theory im interested in.

I would need to look at the evidence of the thyroid cartilage again, but I would imagine this could have happened by falling with enough force directly against a step for example.

But the defence argue that she fell backwards, multiple times. Not forwards.

begbysback

Maybe he trained the owl and they both did it

pc7

Was a fascinating watch. Loved seeing how the defense built the case. I believe he was involved in her death but based on what was shown on the series I couldn’t as a juror have found him guilty, I’m sure I read somewhere he was dating the director of the show so what we were shown may have been more biased than someone else presenting the data.

GingerLily

pc7 wrote: »

Was a fascinating watch. Loved seeing how the defense built the case. I believe he was involved in her death but based on what was shown on the series I couldn’t as a juror have found him guilty, I’m sure I read somewhere he was dating the director of the show so what we were shown may have been more biased than someone else presenting the data.

It was the editor, but either way - how dodgy?

I can't figure out what exactly happened, but there's no version where I can see his innocence.

For instance - buying the blow pokes? WTF (it's all in the podcast Beyond Reasonable Doubt BBC)

retro:electro

Beyond Reasonable Doubt podcast is very well produced and picks up on a lot of nuances that were conveniently left out of the documentary. You could probably skip the first few eps if you’re already familiar with the basics.
I just don’t know how anyone can look at the picture of Kathleen at the bottom of the stairs and speculate on anything other than a savagely brutal attack.

GingerLily

retro:electro wrote: »

Beyond Reasonable Doubt podcast is very well produced and picks up on a lot of nuances that were conveniently left out of the documentary. You could probably skip the first few eps if you’re already familiar with the basics.
I just don’t know how anyone can look at the picture of Kathleen at the bottom of the stairs and speculate on anything other than a savagely brutal attack.

That's the thing, how likely is that kind of blood loss for a fall down the stairs? How common is it? How probable is it? That's never really been discussed by actual experts

J Mysterio

retro:electro wrote: »

Beyond Reasonable Doubt podcast is very well produced and picks up on a lot of nuances that were conveniently left out of the documentary. You could probably skip the first few eps if you’re already familiar with the basics.
I just don’t know how anyone can look at the picture of Kathleen at the bottom of the stairs and speculate on anything other than a savagely brutal attack.

This is the classic mistake though. Its allowing emotion to cloud judgement. Of course it is always shocking to find a scene like that.

Thats why this case is so interesting. Was Michael Peterson capable of murder? Did he have a motive? Everyone who was worth asking said they had the most loving relationship and made each other very happy.

Im not familiar with the show you mention though, so must check it out. I am also aware that there have been criticisms of the show in terms of bias or 'creative licence'.

J Mysterio

GingerLily wrote: »

That's the thing, how likely is that kind of blood loss for a fall down the stairs? How common is it? How probable is it? That's never really been discussed by actual experts

Testimony regarding blood was ultimately the most important facet of the case. Duane Deaver, the prosecution specialist on blood spatter, was discredited after the trial and this subsequently led to Peterson challenging the case and eventually securing his freedom.

GingerLily

J Mysterio wrote: »

Testimony regarding the blood and blood spatter was ultimately the most important facet of the case. Duane Deaver, the prosecution specialist, was discredited after the trial which ultimately led to Peterson being free today.

DD lied, I'm talking aside from that,a real impartial expert

retro:electro

J Mysterio wrote: »

This is the classic mistake though. Its allowing emotion to cloud judgement. Of course it is always shocking to find a scene like that.

Thats why this case is so interesting. Was Michael Peterson capable of murder? Did he have a motive? Everyone who was worth asking said they had the most loving relationship and made each other very happy.

Everyone worth asking were also unaware that he was secretly bisexual and initiating sexual relationships with other men.

retro:electro

J Mysterio wrote: »

Testimony regarding blood was ultimately the most important facet of the case. Duane Deaver, the prosecution specialist on blood spatter, was discredited after the trial and this subsequently led to Peterson challenging the case and eventually securing his freedom.

Several other blood spatter experts also arrived at the same conclusion as Deaver. The defence rely too heavily on the fact he lied in other cases. The jury actually said they found a lot of Deaver’s testimony boring and irrelevant. They would have found him guilty either way. I suspect the defence knew this too, which is why they ended up taking the Alford plea instead of going to trial again. An innocent man doesn’t plead guilty.

J Mysterio

retro:electro wrote: »

Everyone worth asking were also unaware that he was securely bisexual and initiating sexual relationships with other men.

Its a compromising fact, no doubt. It's something the defence were very keen to keep from the jury, as this can 'make ones mind up'.

But, from another perspective, does this make one a murderer? Does not everyone have a sexual kink they keep to themselves? Have not many lacked fidelity?

retro:electro

J Mysterio wrote: »

Its a compromising fact, no doubt. It's something the defence were very keen to keep from the jury, as this can 'make ones mind up'.

But from another perspective, does this make one a murderer? Does not everyone have a sexual kink they keep to themselves? Have not many lacked fidelity?

Well you were using his supposed happy marriage to prop up your argument that he couldn’t possibly be capable of murder as apparently he was thriving in his marriage. I’m just stating what the reality actually was to counter that point. I’m not stating if it makes him capable or not. Just that all was not as it seems. Those who put up a good shop window might have the messiest store room.

c.p.w.g.w

Weather you believe his guilty or not. There is certainly one thing we can agree on, that there is sufficient doubt for an aquittal. The fact that it took so many years for him to be freed, with the fake "science" at condemned him is truly a scandal

J Mysterio

retro:electro wrote: »

Several other blood spatter experts also arrived at the same conclusion as Deaver.

I'm not sure that is the case.

The defence rely too heavily on the fact he lied in other cases.

I'm afraid it was out of the jury's hands at that point, this was after the fact. Nometheless, a liar's testimony doesnt count for much.

The jury actually said they found a lot of Deaver’s testimony boring and irrelevant. They would have found him guilty either way. I suspect the defence knew this too, which is why they ended up taking the Alford plea instead of going to trial again. An innocent man doesn’t plead guilty.

Again, the Alford plea was taken after the jury trial. Peterson had already spent several years jn jail.

retro:electro

He had the choice to plead his guilt and remain in prison, plead his innocence and go to trial again, or take the Alford plea (which is technically admitting guilt) and hopefully be freed.
He decided to enter an Alford plea. Yes this was all after the initial jury trial but if you were truly innocent as he constantly states then you wouldn’t plead guilty under Alford.

c.p.w.g.w

retro:electro wrote: »

He had the choice to plead his guilt and remain in prison, plead his innocence and go to trial again, or take the Alford plea (which is technically admitting guilt) and hopefully be freed.
He decided to enter an Alford plea. Yes this was all after the initial jury trial but if you were truly innocent as he constantly states then you wouldn’t plead guilty under Alford.

Spend as many years in prison as he has. Missing his grandkids growing up, living in fear and many other unimaginable things and come back and say the same

retro:electro

c.p.w.g.w wrote: »

Spend as many years in prison as he has. Missing his grandkids growing up, living in fear and many other unimaginable things and come back and say the same

No thanks I don’t plan on murdering anybody anytime soon.

J Mysterio

retro:electro wrote: »

He had the choice to plead his guilt and remain in prison, plead his innocence and go to trial again, or take the Alford plea (which is technically admitting guilt) and hopefully be freed.
He decided to enter an Alford plea. Yes this was all after the initial jury trial but if you were truly innocent as he constantly states then you wouldn’t plead guilty under Alford.

He would say he was innocent - so why risk further jailtime at his age and in his condition when you can end it with Alford Plea.

The question is about the evidence. This is why the case is so interesting. I'm playing devils advocate in a way, because I'm certainly not convinced of Peterson's innocence. But I have reasonable doubt and dont have enough evidence to covict.

c.p.w.g.w

retro:electro wrote: »

No thanks I don’t plan on murdering anybody anytime soon.

In America plenty of innocent people have been convicted.

retro:electro

J Mysterio wrote: »

He would say he was innocent - so why risk further jailtime at his age and in his condition when you can end it with Alford Plea.

If they were so sure that the initial guilty verdict was totally and completely based on Deaver’s skewed testimony then why not go for another trial? None of that would have made it into a second trial. So, if he was so sure that’s all they had on him.. then he should have greeted a new trial and the possibility of exoneration with open arms.
I’m sure most innocent people would rather spend the remainder of their lives in jail than admit to murdering their dearly beloved wife (I’ve whispered her name a thousand times in my heart bs) and have it on record that you’re a felon by admission.
But of course, “crooked table! I don’t trust the system bs”. Yeah yeah. Anything but confront the fact you murdered your wife and let her bleed to death at the foot of the stairs for over two hours before you called for help.

ncmc

I’ve seen The Staircase, listened to ‘Beyond Reasonable Doubt’ and read Diane Fanning’s book, Written in Blood. It’s a very hard case to make any sense of, the series is very biased in favour of Peterson, the book is very biased against him. The podcast is good, but I found it very repetitive and there was a lot of elements that could have been fleshed out but weren’t. I think one of the key issues that has never been explained is what Michael was doing for 2 hours after Kathleen came back in the house. She left the pool area at 12:30 to make a call and he didn’t call 911 until 2:40. It was about 12 degrees that night and would have felt cooler by the pool, it’s not exactly sitting out weather. Then you have the fact that several different people who were first responders at the scene state that the blood was quite dried yet Michael claimed (and still claims) that she was breathing during that first call. He still cannot account for his movements in those two hours.

Also, there was some evidence of blood that had been cleaned up in the kitchen (notably near the washing machine and on the handle of the press where the wine glasses were kept) There is a theory that he poured glasses of wine and emptied the bottle down the sink to make it appear Kathleen had drank more than she did. In actual fact, her blood alcohol limit was .08 which was the legal driving limit at the time. I know Duane Deaver has been completely discredited and even when watching the Staircase, I couldn’t believe his crazy tests, but that doesn’t mean all his evidence is falsified. It is a fact that Michael had spatters on the inside of his shorts and on his shoes. Also, there was a bloody footprint on the back of Kathleen’s leg and as previously mentioned, there is evidence of attempted strangulation.

I don’t like the way the series portrayed Candace as being a total nutjob, she had lost her sister, most probably to murder. She wanted the guilty party brought to justice. I don’t think that makes her crazy, it makes her understandably angry. Also, Peterson admits buying blowpokes during the trial, he claims it was because Rudolph wanted them, but if it was for the case, Rudolph would have ordered them. The blowpoke that was found in the garage was missing the 6 inch spike at the end, seems a bit suspicious!

Overall, I think he is guilty. The fact that the state were willing to go ahead with a second trial despite Germany, his sexuality and Deaver’s testimony being inadmisable, must mean they still think they had a strong case. However, I think there is enough reasonable doubt that means I was surprised with the guilty verdict and the desire of the state to push for a retrial.

J Mysterio

retro:electro wrote: »

If they were so sure that the initial guilty verdict was totally and completely based on Deaver’s skewed testimony then why not go for another trial? None of that would have made it into a second trial. So, if he was so sure that’s all they had on him.. then he should have greeted a new trial and the possibility of exoneration with open arms.
I’m sure most innocent people would rather spend the remainder of their lives in jail than admit to murdering their dearly beloved wife (I’ve whispered her name a thousand times in my heart bs) and have it on record that you’re a felon by admission.

He spent 8 years in jail. He was he was 67 when released, but looked 77. He would maintain he had lost his wife and then been wrongfully convicted - in that circumstance, why put yourself throught it again? The Staircase 2 showcased these deliberations.

retro:electro

J Mysterio wrote: »

He spent 8 years in jail. He was he was 67 when released, but looked 77. He would maintain he had lost his wife and then been wrongfully convicted - in that circumstance, why put yourself throught it again? The Staircase 2 showcased these deliberations.

Already answered that and yeah I know I saw it.

HandsomeBob

retro:electro wrote: »

He had the choice to plead his guilt and remain in prison, plead his innocence and go to trial again, or take the Alford plea (which is technically admitting guilt) and hopefully be freed.
He decided to enter an Alford plea. Yes this was all after the initial jury trial but if you were truly innocent as he constantly states then you wouldn’t plead guilty under Alford.

It wasn't as if taking the Alford plea was an easy decision for him though. The documentary showed how steadfast he was against it initially when broached by Rudolph. Once he finally accepted that the Alford plea was best for him given his circumstances he shut himself away for days in a state of depression because he fully realised what it meant for him.

Now you could say this was all part of yet another calculated attempt by him to portray himself in a sympathetic light, but it gets to the point where you have to ask yourself just how good an actor you think this guy is.

That's just me playing Devil's Advocate. I do think he did it but at the same time, I don't see him taking the Alford Plea as the key damning factor pointing towards guilt.

retro:electro

HandsomeBob wrote: »

It wasn't as if taking the Alford plea was an easy decision for him though. The documentary showed how steadfast he was against it initially when broached by Rudolph.

I didn’t really see it that way. I thought he was pretty open to taking the plea from the get go, but the wording of it had to be on his terms. He’s that much of a control freak he thought he’d be able to rearrange the meaning of the plea to mean he’s innocent, but of course that’s contrary to the point of the plea. Only when this was pointed out to him that he would have to admit guilt did he become hesitant. I think the Alford plea is a funny one anyway, it seems kind of counterproductive to justice. You’re either guilty or your innocent, but that’s neither here nor there. I think he was always going to take the plea, he just had to show resistance and work the audience because he is an absolute master manipulator.

seligehgit

retro:electro wrote: »

He had the choice to plead his guilt and remain in prison, plead his innocence and go to trial again, or take the Alford plea (which is technically admitting guilt) and hopefully be freed.
He decided to enter an Alford plea. Yes this was all after the initial jury trial but if you were truly innocent as he constantly states then you wouldn’t plead guilty under Alford.

Fair enough but he was at that stage an elderly man,his jail time had a taken a toll.

I would'nt be so critical of him taking the Alford plea as he was fearful he again would'nt get a fair trial.

Anyhow is David Rudolf coming to Limerick??

Danjamin1

retro:electro wrote: »

I didn’t really see it that way. I thought he was pretty open to taking the plea from the get go, but the wording of it had to be on his terms. He’s that much of a control freak he thought he’d be able to rearrange the meaning of the plea to mean he’s innocent, but of course that’s contrary to the point of the plea. Only when this was pointed out to him that he would have to admit guilt did he become hesitant. I think the Alford plea is a funny one anyway, it seems kind of counterproductive to justice. You’re either guilty or your innocent, but that’s neither here nor there. I think he was always going to take the plea, he just had to show resistance and work the audience because he is an absolute master manipulator.

I think you’re giving him too much credit and your steadfast confidence of his guilt is clouding your judgement. Maybe he is that calculated but I don’t think so. I’ve mentioned before I don’t know if he’s guilty or innocent, still haven’t made up my mind one way or another. But in his position with the option of ending everything with an Alford plea I think I would have reluctantly chosen the same. Bear in mind he’s bankrupt at this stage and has already spent time in prison after a trial in which you have agreed there was enough reasonable doubt established that he should not have been convicted. Would you really take that risk?

retro:electro

Danjamin1 wrote: »

I think you’re giving him too much credit and your steadfast confidence of his guilt is clouding your judgement.

Perhaps I would find him easier to defend if there was an explanation as to what exactly he was doing in the two hours before he called 911. Also his “she’s still breathing” to the dispatcher doesn’t add up. It’s estimated by the amount of dried blood around her body that she had been dead for hours. Those are facts you cannot just brush aside or ignore. Also the fact he was living a double life and initiating sex with men doesn’t help. (Not a judgement on his sexuality btw. More a judgment on the fact he was lying to his wife)

Would you really take that risk?

I’d rather have one last shot at protesting my innocence in a trial where everything “crooked” that I felt had damned my case the first time around would be inadmissible this time around. I certainly would not be pleading guilt to a murder I did not commit.

GingerLily

I wouldn't judge anyone for taking an Alford plee, if you followed the case of the west memphis three, those guys were innocent but desperate, such a sad case.

I'd recommend 'West of Memphis' on Netflix to anyone who hasn't heard of the case.

c.p.w.g.w

GingerLily wrote: »

I wouldn't judge anyone for taking an Alford plee, if you followed the case of the west memphis three, those guys were innocent but desperate, such a sad case.

I'd recommend 'West of Memphis' on Netflix to anyone who hasn't heard of the case.

Depressing case all round...American "Justice" is so unique

Danjamin1

retro:electro wrote: »

Perhaps I would find him easier to defend if there was an explanation as to what exactly he was doing in the two hours before he called 911. Also his “she’s still breathing” to the dispatcher doesn’t add up. It’s estimated by the amount of dried blood around her body that she had been dead for hours. Those are facts you cannot just brush aside or ignore. Also the fact he was living a double life and initiating sex with men doesn’t help. (Not a judgement on his sexuality btw. More a judgment on the fact he was lying to his wife)

I think the only person who knows whether or not Kathleen knew about his sexuality is Michael so we don’t know for certain that he did lie about that. The missing timeline is questionable of course and doesn’t shine a light of innocence on Michael but a lack of explanation for that period of time is not evidence of guilt, at best it brings his version of events in to question. The dried blood and the phone call are fishy so that definitely doesn’t fit his version of events.

retro:electro wrote: »

I’d rather have one last shot at protesting my innocence in a trial where everything “crooked” that I felt had damned my case the first time around would be inadmissible this time around. I certainly would not be pleading guilt to a murder I did not commit.

At 67 after serving 10(?) years in prison do you really think you’d make that same call? Especially if you feel you were wrongly convicted the first time? I certainly wouldn’t trust a jury when I could guarantee my own freedom under those circumstances. The technical admission of guilt would be a bitter pill to swallow though.

retro:electro

Well whatever way you feel about this case, I think we can all agree that he should spend the remainder of his life living in a bungalow. :pac:

GalwayGrrrrrl

David Rudolf is coming to Galway in November. I booked tickets online via Roisin Dubh and got an email last week inviting submission of up to 2 questions for David. They’ll be screened before the day and I may or may not be allowed to ask my question. Hope I can!