Did Michael Peterson murder his wife?

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 ............

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

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.

MadDog76 wrote: »

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

wonderwall900 wrote: »

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

See my post above .............

Malayalam wrote: »

I only watched 2 episodes because I found it boring too. I think it was in the first sentence or 2 that he spoke that I decided he was guilty. If you look at it he paused briefly before naming the movie they had watched that evening. It was a deliberate pause for effect to convey a sense of the casual. Almost imperceptible but aiming at nuance. He was acting. I have been around actors and theatre quite a bit. He is an actor and a poor one at that.

Be sure to have yourself excused from Jury Duty if you're ever selected.....

Peterson had a romantic relationship with the documentary’s editor. Explains the bias to some degree at least.

I think he did it. Occam’s razor and all that.

(Watched the documentary a few years ago on YouTube).

MadDog76 wrote: »

The last 3 episodes are new .............

Didn’t know that. I’ll watch those, thanks.