Boards.ie uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Click here to find out more x
Post Reply  
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
09-10-2018, 13:41   #61
GingerLily
Registered User
 
GingerLily's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 3,604
Quote:
Originally Posted by Danjamin1 View Post
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
GingerLily is online now  
Advertisement
09-10-2018, 13:54   #62
tommythecat
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 234
Quote:
Originally Posted by GingerLily View Post
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.
I would recommend to watch the "paradise lost" trilogy before watching "west of memphis". They follow the orginal trial and the subsequent years and make for compelling viewing. And yes these guys accepted an Alford plea, but should not be judged guilty for it.
tommythecat is offline  
09-10-2018, 14:37   #63
Danjamin1
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 914
Quote:
Originally Posted by GingerLily View Post
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
The documentary was biased, I thought Beyond Reasonable Doubt was biased against Michael. I certainly wouldn't have been convinced of his absolute guilt from the evidence shown in the trial (though to be fair I only saw what was presented in the documentary) and it sounds like the judge presiding over the trial was of the same opinion.
Danjamin1 is offline  
09-10-2018, 14:42   #64
Boom_Bap
Landfill
 
Boom_Bap's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 20,994
The documentary completely ignores the footprint on the back. We only heard about this in the prosecutions closing argument.
The last thing that Micheal would be doing is standing on Kathleen.
Boom_Bap is offline  
09-10-2018, 15:24   #65
ncmc
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 4,661
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boom_Bap View Post
The documentary completely ignores the footprint on the back. We only heard about this in the prosecutions closing argument.
The last thing that Micheal would be doing is standing on Kathleen.
And barely mentions the contusions on her neck that are consistent with an attempted strangulation.
ncmc is online now  
Advertisement
15-10-2018, 12:53   #66
Joe Schmo
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 44
Saw David Rudolph in the Liberty Theatre (Dublin) last night as part of 8 appearances in Ireland. Tickets were about €26 each.

I found it quite boring- mainly a recap of events that transpired in the Documentary and some 'behind the scenes' information that were interesting but sparse.

I didn't get the impression there was much planning in the event and on his part- while he is a good speaker the event largely felt like a 'cash grab'.

To recap:
1. He believes Michael Peterson didn't kill Catherine.
2. Michael now lives in a 1 floor apartment.

I would be interested in other peoples experience.
Joe Schmo is offline  
(5) thanks from:
15-10-2018, 13:18   #67
Boom_Bap
Landfill
 
Boom_Bap's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 20,994
so not worth getting along to then?
Boom_Bap is offline  
15-10-2018, 13:25   #68
Boom_Bap
Landfill
 
Boom_Bap's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 20,994
Just got a bit curious about the Blood Spatter guy the screwed the case, he was fired, tried to get re-instated, been sued and now working in Texas


https://www.thewrap.com/the-staircas...-duane-deaver/


The guy cost the state millions.
Boom_Bap is offline  
15-10-2018, 13:40   #69
Joe Schmo
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boom_Bap View Post
so not worth getting along to then?
No I wouldn't recommend it.
Joe Schmo is offline  
(3) thanks from:
Advertisement
22-10-2018, 09:51   #70
p to the e
Registered User
 
p to the e's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,664
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Schmo View Post
Saw David Rudolph in the Liberty Theatre (Dublin) last night as part of 8 appearances in Ireland. Tickets were about €26 each.

I found it quite boring- mainly a recap of events that transpired in the Documentary and some 'behind the scenes' information that were interesting but sparse.

I didn't get the impression there was much planning in the event and on his part- while he is a good speaker the event largely felt like a 'cash grab'.

To recap:
1. He believes Michael Peterson didn't kill Catherine.
2. Michael now lives in a 1 floor apartment.

I would be interested in other peoples experience.
I went aswell and can't disagree with you at all. Definitely felt like he was trying to make a quick buck and run. He only took questions in the form of written questions before the show which I felt he only answered the ones he wanted to.

David also seemed to have the notion that every one in the room believed Michael was innocent. Personally I went in thinking Michael was guilty and nothing I heard convinced me otherwise.

He mentioned that Lastrade et al. filmed about 160 hours of footage. I'd love to know if that would ever be made avaliable
p to the e is offline  
Thanks from:
26-10-2018, 14:05   #71
Boom_Bap
Landfill
 
Boom_Bap's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 20,994
Just seen a snippet of an interview between Russell Brand and David Rudolf. Very interesting discussion of the jury. There was one juror which the team could see from body language etc that he was leaning towards not guilty.
Over deliberations, the juror was stopped by police (they are not sequestered) with a charge of drunk driving.
The prosecution then got the juror excused from the case. The new juror that came in was of Kathleen's age and same profession and ended up being the foreperson of the jury who ultimately delivered the guilty verdict.
Boom_Bap is offline  
13-11-2018, 12:16   #72
Tipsy McSwagger
Registered User
 
Tipsy McSwagger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 7,941
The lack of blood on MP is actually way more telling in that he murdered Kathleen rather than he is innocent. His wife is lying at the bottom of the stairs covered in blood and the floor, stairs,walls all have blood on them and he doesn’t get any blood on him (apart from a small bit on his shorts)? He says in the 911 call that she’s still breathing so what would any normal person do, you would attempt first aid or at least comfort the injured person (he actually states she died in his arms) but there is no blood on his t-shirt. His T-shirt should have been soaked in blood. The guy is 100% guilty.
Tipsy McSwagger is offline  
(3) thanks from:
13-11-2018, 14:48   #73
retro:electro
Registered User
 
retro:electro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 16,168
Yeah you would absolutely get down on your hands and knees and embrace them and do anything you could to comfort and revive them. You’d be absolutely covered in blood. He was suspiciously clean, deliberately so I believe.
retro:electro is offline  
16-11-2018, 09:53   #74
Tipsy McSwagger
Registered User
 
Tipsy McSwagger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 7,941
It’s crazy that practically throughout the whole making of the documentary that MP was in a relationship with the docs editor.
Tipsy McSwagger is offline  
27-11-2018, 23:42   #75
retro:electro
Registered User
 
retro:electro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 16,168
Just home from the audience with David. I thought it was good.. but left feeling more frustrated than when I entered. David himself seems like a lovely man, very witty and personable, but I cannot understand how after all this time he’s not even willing to entertain anything other than Michael’s innocence.
I would agree with the previous poster who said he speaks to the audience with the inclination we assume Michael is innocent, and if not he is trying to convince you so.
He argued about the rights of the press to publish the prejudicial stuff from Germany vs Michael’s right to a trial, he said it was a case of amendment vs amendement. He kind of made it seem like it was an issue exclusive to this case, instead of acknowledging its an American justice issue in any event.
I found it interesting that he did not mention the night itself at all. His whole argument was focused on the trial and the injustices he felt present. He did not once mention the night itself, the 9/11 call, what Michael did in the two hours before the call.. nothing.
Also at times it just all felt kind of in bad taste.. I noted that he didn’t even mention Kathleen’s name at all until the second act. There was a lot of attempted jokes and witticisms that kind of fell flat.. I think in the back of your mind it’s hard to erase the fact that a women (possibly two) died at the hands of this man and so it’s just in bad taste to try and be humorous off the back of that.

He didn’t read out my pre-submitted question but I did get a chance at the end to meet him and ask him personally. I just wanted to know why, if the defence argue that Kathleen fell backwards multiple times, why she had a fractured cartilage injury. He kind of fobbed me off and asked me to email him. So I asked him again.. and said it’s an injury consistent with manual strangulation and he deflected and said it’s not only consistent with strangulation it’s often presented in those who have been in car crashes etc.. I said okay but she wasn’t in a car crash.. and he said he had to go... also almost the entire second act was dedicated to the owl theory which David himself says he doesn’t believe to be true but still he insisted on mentioning it. Funny because he spent a lot of time insisting we don’t pay heed to Reddit or speculative theories online; while he himself indulged one of the biggest online conspiracies himself...
If anything it just re-solidified my belief that he is guilty as sin. David is a great defence lawyer and he was doing his job. He treated the town hall like a mini court room, replaying pieces from the doc and arguing against them poking holes etc. But overall i just wasn’t convinced.

So yeah. I enjoyed it but it did have a feel that it was thrown together last minute. There was a moderator there prompting David and instructing him but the moderator seemed kind of bias and selective in his questioning. My bf is quite worried at this stage He says I’ve graduated from documentaries to podcasts and now to live shows... the next step is the real thing.... watch this space....

Last edited by retro:electro; 27-11-2018 at 23:53.
retro:electro is offline  
(6) thanks from:
Post Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Remove Text Formatting
Bold
Italic
Underline

Insert Image
Wrap [QUOTE] tags around selected text
 
Decrease Size
Increase Size
Please sign up or log in to join the discussion

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search



Share Tweet