Did Michael Peterson murder his wife?

When Police and Prosecutors in the US decide someone is to be found guilty of murder, and the case is not clearly supported by direct evidence, they are prone to ****ing it up for the sake of getting a win, rather for getting to the truth.

Look at "Murder on a Sunday Morning" or how the Brendan Dassey questioning in "Making a Murderer" was handled by Police as examples of how it can all start going wrong at the start of the investigation.

I would truly hate to be a poor person accused of a serious crime in America. And if I wasn't white, it's GoodNight Life and kiss yer ass Goodbye!

mad m wrote: »

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.

My understanding was that that all came out after Michael Peterson went on trial.

Pelvis wrote: »

What other documentaries?

Also I can't see how anyone can think the blow poke was the murder weapon. The defence did a pretty good job showing the injuries simply did not support the theory that she was beaten in a fit of rage with an object like that.

Again as I and others have said that documentary is incredibly biased towards the defense.

Go on YouTube and search Kathleen Peterson - you’ll find plenty of documentaries that give a much broader view of the case.

From memory of reading about the case whether he did it or not there is no way he should have been convicted, there was a lot of reasonable doubt in the case.

The prosecution sucked major balls.

Really don't see how he did it. Not only is there a reasonable doubt of his guilt, there's little to tie him to the death of his wife other than the bizzare fact that he had two wives die at the bottom of a stairs. Admittedly, it's a crazy coincidence but there's no murder weapon, motive, blood spatter etc to tie him to a murder.

The owl theory looks likely. The scrapes on Kathleen's head look exactly like an owl's claws/ feet whatever they're called.

I like Peterson too. Nice guy, funny, good family, looked after kids that weren't his etc

optogirl wrote: »

First woman was not his wife. I repeat, the first woman who fell down the stairs & died was not his wife

I think there is a question mark over the nature of his relationship with her though and over whether her elder daughter Margaret is in fact Peterson’s daughter.

Again like Making a Murderer i'm left with the impression that he probably didn't do it but its certainly possible that he did. I don't know.

What is absolutely certain is that the prosecution played foul. Duane Deavers false testimony being critical and instrumental in the conviction and as a result MP should never have been convicted.
I can't understand the people who are so sure that he did it. All the points in the that reddit thread at the very best have a counterpoints that raise doubt and at worst are easily explainable.

MadDog76 wrote: »

fred funk }{ wrote: »

Great documentary. The case reminded me of the OJ Simpsons case where he was clearly guilty but the cops and prosecution were corrupt and tried to make the evidence fit the accused.

Another thing I found strange was the access to the legal system the media have over there. The judge even appeared in the documentary. Bizarre stuff and not a country where you'd like to try defend yourself if the situation ever arose.

Funnily enough the Judge, who handled the Trial terribly, finally admitted that Petersen should NOT have been convicted which says a lot when you consider the fact that he would have been privy to evidence (or lack of evidence) that even the Jury wouldn't have access to.......

The judge did NOT say that he shouldn't have been convicted. He said that if it had gone to a retrial, he would almost certainly have refused to allow the German death to be presented to the jury and he MIGHT have also disallowed Brett the Gigolo from testifying as they were prejudicial to Peterson which is not permitted. Therefore, if the corrupt SBI blood man, the German death, Brett and the Blow Poke were all removed from the prosecution case, what else did they have? Shag all!

That's why I can't figure out why he went for the Alford.

check_six wrote: »

Has anyone any good theories as to how Kathleen ended up in that state? The slipping on the stairs and thrashing around afterwards from the defence was a bit unlikely, but then again, they didn't have to prove that was what had happened. The prosecution's poker theory was just nonsensical and they certainly didn't make a good job of making it convincing.
So what could have been the circumstances that led to those wounds in that corner of the house?

Although again I'm not sure that MP is innocent the owl theory holds much more weight for me. Do yourself a favour if you didn't see it and look into it. This is what I could easily imagine happening more than either the defense or prosecution theories. Outwardly it seems kinda ridiculous but plausible nonetheless.

KP is attacked as she enters the house by the owl. It sinks its claws into her head causing the wounds(several animal experts have said the wounds on her head are consistent with a Barred Owl talons).

She struggles, eventually dislodging the owl and pulling lumps of her own hair out in the process(owl microfeathers found in her hands also). A few drops of her blood are found outside as she has started to bleed. She hurries inside and makes her way upstairs looking for something to wrap the wounds on her head.
Dazed and panicked after being attacked combined with alcohol and valium in her system shes slips and falls on the stairs causing additional injuries to her neck and arms. She falls unconscious and bleeds to death.

Again though this is just the more likely scenario that my minds eye sees when i look at those wounds. I'm not saying MP didn't or couldn't have done it but I simply can't imagine a beating, a fall or a blowpoke causing those twisted irregular wounds.

wonderwall900 wrote: »

After Avery's first prison sentence the vast majority of Making A Murderer left out loads of vital facts against Avery.
Making A Murderer is an absolute shambles of a documentary. Once you do even a bit of cursory reading up on the Avery case you'll see this.

Yeah again you're assuming i haven't read all the additional material. I have. Or much of it anyway. There's nothing there that shook my overwhelming sense of "I don't know".

As I said before and like this case also. I don't know. I am certain however that there was foul play on the states side and as a result he shouldn't have been convicted. That's all.

I loved this documentary but I don't know if he's guilty or not. I was sure he wasn't guilty but then I listened to the BBC podcast 'Beyond Reasonable Doubt' and I definitely think he had something to do with it. I though his son Todd was very odd and could possibly have something to do with it either.

That podcast is really interesting. It mentions a lot that wasn't in The Staircase. There's an interview with Michael Peterson himself and what struck me was how he doesn't answer questions. He immediately talks about how people who think he's guilty won't change their minds. They talk to the judge, the District Attorney and Candace (Kathleen's sister) on the podcast too!

Someone mentioned about one of the daughters possibly being his child. There was a DNA test done and it proved she wasn't his child. I think the DNA came from an old stamp so I can't imagine it's too reliable.