Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

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

2

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 11,035 ✭✭✭✭J Mysterio


    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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 21,039 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,993 ✭✭✭c.p.w.g.w


    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


  • Registered Users Posts: 21,039 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 11,035 ✭✭✭✭J Mysterio


    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.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 4,993 ✭✭✭c.p.w.g.w


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

    In America plenty of innocent people have been convicted.


  • Registered Users Posts: 21,039 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,852 ✭✭✭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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 11,035 ✭✭✭✭J Mysterio


    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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 21,039 ✭✭✭✭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. :confused:


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,977 ✭✭✭HandsomeBob


    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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 21,039 ✭✭✭✭retro:electro


    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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,286 ✭✭✭seligehgit


    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??


  • Registered Users Posts: 919 ✭✭✭Danjamin1


    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?


  • Registered Users Posts: 21,039 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,767 ✭✭✭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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,993 ✭✭✭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


  • Registered Users Posts: 919 ✭✭✭Danjamin1


    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.
    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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 21,039 ✭✭✭✭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:


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,519 ✭✭✭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!


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 9,286 ✭✭✭seligehgit


    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!

    Cheers just bought a ticket!


  • Moderators, Music Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,717 Mod ✭✭✭✭Boom_Bap


    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!

    I'd love to ask about any alternative theories as to what he thinks happened.
    I get the impression in the doc that when some new evidence turned up he himself was questioning Michael's innocence.


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,767 ✭✭✭GingerLily


    Boom_Bap wrote: »
    I'd love to ask about any alternative theories as to what he thinks happened.
    I get the impression in the doc that when some new evidence turned up he himself was questioning Michael's innocence.

    He seemed very conflicted in the recent episodes, it's as if he wanted to believe he was innocent but he had serious doubts. Which is odd considering there appeared to be less evidence against him?

    I don't think he could ever tell the truth if he had reasonable suspicion, it would ruin his career. He's a named partner in a law firm, he must be racking it in!


  • Moderators, Music Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,717 Mod ✭✭✭✭Boom_Bap


    I think it was his reaction in the car when the autopsy report came in after the exhumation was the turning point.
    He immediately deflected and basing a defence against wording rather than content. But was his body language at that point that I noted was off.

    Also, not wanting to take the case 8 years later was a big indicator to me that he wasn't convinced anymore.


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,767 ✭✭✭GingerLily


    Boom_Bap wrote: »
    Il
    Also, not wanting to take the case 8 years later was a big indicator to me that he wasn't convinced anymore.

    Yes, that's very suspicious


  • Registered Users Posts: 919 ✭✭✭Danjamin1


    GingerLily wrote: »
    Yes, that's very suspicious

    He would have been taking the case pro bono, I just presumed that was the main reason he didn’t want to take it.


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,286 ✭✭✭seligehgit


    Danjamin1 wrote: »
    He would have been taking the case pro bono, I just presumed that was the main reason he didn’t want to take it.

    That's my impression,Peterson was at stage pretty much broke.


  • Moderators, Music Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,717 Mod ✭✭✭✭Boom_Bap


    My impression is that his profile has been raised at that point 8 years later and didn't want more spatter on it :)


  • Registered Users Posts: 919 ✭✭✭Danjamin1


    Boom_Bap wrote: »
    My impression is that his profile has been raised at that point 8 years later and didn't want more spatter on it :)

    I'm sure that had a part to play in it as David himself said he just can't go through the whole ordeal again and he was very put out that the jury returned a guilty verdict in the original trial despite a very clear and reasonable doubt being established.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 4,767 ✭✭✭GingerLily


    Danjamin1 wrote: »
    I'm sure that had a part to play in it as David himself said he just can't go through the whole ordeal again and he was very put out that the jury returned a guilty verdict in the original trial despite a very clear and reasonable doubt being established.

    I don't know if there was, if you believed the testimony it seems quite likely that Michael did it?

    The documentary was very bias


Advertisement