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**

  • 05-10-2018 9:40am
    #1
    Moderators, Music Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,717 Mod ✭✭✭✭


    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?


«13

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 11,035 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 12,236 Mod ✭✭✭✭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.


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


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


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


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


  • Registered Users Posts: 325 ✭✭d1980


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


  • Registered Users Posts: 919 ✭✭✭Danjamin1


    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!


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


  • Registered Users Posts: 919 ✭✭✭Danjamin1


    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 :)
    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.
    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!


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 11,035 ✭✭✭✭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.


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


  • Registered Users Posts: 11,035 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,767 ✭✭✭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


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


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


    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.


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


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,910 ✭✭✭begbysback


    Maybe he trained the owl and they both did it


  • Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 13,937 Mod ✭✭✭✭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.


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


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


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


    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


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


    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'.


  • Registered Users Posts: 11,035 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,767 ✭✭✭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


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


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


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


    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?


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


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 4,993 ✭✭✭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


Advertisement