Did Michael Peterson murder his wife?

2 Scoops wrote: »

I think he did it, coincidences like the incident in Germany just don't happen.

The Documentary was heavily skewed in his favour, he lied about his injuries for money. For me that's a huge tell the guy isn't trustworthy and gives an insight into his character. If you tried to grab him he'd slip out of your hands like an eel.

They do, thats why they are called coincidences!

Whether he is trustworthy or not is completely irrelevant, being untrustworthy does not make one a murderer.

In all likelihood he did kill her or at least had a part to play in it, but no way in hell in a semi functioning legal system should he have been convicted.

As someone above mentioned in passing ..... listen to the BBC podcast 'beyond reasonable doubt' ... great alternative views and a lot of info we never get to know in the French filmmakers work. Also fascinating where are they now updates .....particularly fascinating how the southern prosecuter lady frida ended up. It's about 12 or 15 podcasts long .....addictive listening. I actually changed my view after it. I can't link it but if you Google 'BBC podcast beyond reasonable doubt ' it'll come right up

I read the title of the thread fast and I thought it said 'Did Michael D Higgins murder his wife?'

Just as an aside. The assistant prosecutor freda black was found dead the other day in her home (not at bottom of stairs I'd assumed ) she had a sad end . Her life spiralled after this case.

I listened to Beyond Reasonable Doubt.

I do not trust Michael Peterson, that blow poke thing is just dodgy - his solicitor would have ordered them if it was to help with the case.
There's a few other red flags too, but that's one of the biggest, especially as they edited out the victims sister saying it was the wrong blow poke (or had been tampered with) in her speech in court!

If he's innocent he's the guiltiest looking innocent man I've ever encountered.

It's just simply a case I to and fro with all the time. I actually like the guy and for me he comes over so earnest and the whole love he has from kids who tbf have plenty to of cause not to support him is something to be jealous of. Any one of us would be lucky to have such support from kids who aren't biologically ours or whose mother may or may not have been murdered by us.

But

There are a few small things that bother me and having started watching the series again they are more obvious on second viewing.

In the first couple episodes I shows crime scene photos. One or 2 in particular struck me. There is one from the kitchen and u see Kathleen body on the floor .....then there is one of the body taken from above .
The first one from the kitchen is basically (if we are to believe him ) the image that he saw when he came in from the garden.
If I saw my wife like that....I'd instantly run to her ...then see the next scene which is her lying awkwardly at foot of stairs. I'd instantly be like wtf happened ....there's so much blood.....omg there's someone in the house ....shes been stabbed ....ring the cops. Yet he rings 911 and he's instantly 'oh she fell down the stairs!'

Just doesn't ring true for me.

Yet on the other hand ....If he did kill her I think we'd all agree it wasn't premeditated. In which case he was extremely lucky that he managed to do it without one bit of damage been inflicted on him /her.

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.