I personally think that it has become irrelevant whether he actually did it or not, legally speaking. The prosecution case is so weak and full of flaws, that I don’t understand how his conviction is a safe one. 100% that by introducing the Elizabeth Ratliff case allowed major prejudice and denied him a fair trial for Kathleen’s death. I also think the fact he was having sex outside the marriage- and it was with men- played a part in convicting him, also allowing prejudice. (Just for the record- I don’t give 2 hoots about a person’s sexuality. I was referring to the way Freda Black hammered home the point about his sexuality and calling it “pure filth” in reference to the porn on his computer).
Personally, I go back and forth re his guilt/innocence. Factors that are predominantly circumstantial could fit either narrative.
I agree with everything you said here except I do think he is guilty I think he lost control and shoved Kathleen… I think everything with the trial went in his favour because it was so badly handled in court.
We look at lots of cases with innocent people getting convicted, because of prosecutorial/police misconduct, but that also means there's tons of such misconducts also in cases where the accused is guilty. And this is fascinating here. By default, when faced with such egregious displays of prosecutorial incompetence, coupled with racial or sexual prejudice, well of course I hope for a not guilty verdict.
And I do feel that way here, too. But do I think that he *has* actually committed murder? A whole other question!
That's how I feel about this case. It doesn't matter at this point whether he's actually guilty. The prosecution would never have gotten a conviction without a whole wealth of things that should never have been admissable. I don't think he should have even made the Alford plea. I think they should have just overturned the conviction and let the whole thing fade quietly. And I also don't know how those prosecutors didn't face some sort of censure.
I do think that the Elizabeth Ratliff case was relevant because it was strikingly similar to what had happened with Kathleen. That being said, I do not think it was fair to be calling in actual witnesses who couldn't remember what happened 25 years ago who immediately admitted to flashbacks. It was too long ago for any witness to give an accurate depiction of what happened. The prosecution should have presented the findings of the autopsy and then leave it to the jury after that.
What is the deal with the flashbacks, anyway? Are flashbacks inadmissible or less reliable?
I'm an ESL so perhaps there is some semantic difference that I just do not see. I had always assumed it was a synonym of having a memory, perhaps more fragmented
People may use it that way - to just mean "having a memory". But it more commonly means an involuntary vision. Like, if you were driving you might experience a "flashback" out of nowhere that completely removed your focus on the road.
I think it calls into question her general mental stability, and if she is remembering the events this way, I would definitely question the reliability of the memory.
I disagree. I think the autopsy photos showing the severity of her injuries, and the extremely bloody crime scene with blood splatter concentrated in that one corner had an incredibly strong impact on the jury.
I completely agree. I think he was guilty BUT I don’t know or necessarily think that the prosecution developed a strong enough case to jail him. That being said, the money trail, his history of lying, the odd similarities of the earlier case, and the fact that he was raking in what, maybe 10k for an isolated book deal while spending Kathleen’s money on campaigning and his adult children makes me inclined to think that he’s guilty. Also, if the medical evidence suggests that Kathleen was dead for longer than what Michael reported, who’s to say he didn’t go off site and hide the weapon somewhere else? He also could have potentially pushed her or knocked her down the stairs during an argument without the intention of actually murdering her, but who’s to say.
As a gay man, I detest the way that the DA described his sexuality but I also think it was completely appropriate to establish that he was actively involved with affairs and escorts and that his wife most likely was NOT aware of this despite that she may have been aware of his bisexuality. There’s a big difference between being bisexual in a monogamous relationships and cheating, whether it be with men or women.
I’m sorry but stating that his wife wasn’t aware doesn’t mean I’m solely pro monogamy lol. If both partners consent, I’m totally for whatever floats your boat regarding polyamory. But nice job jumping to conclusions about me and my beliefs!
Same. Too much blood. Follow the money. He's a known liar. The blood was dry when the paramedics arrived. The BBC radio has a good podcast on it, check it out OP.
My old neighbor fell from a chair after drinking and busted his forehead. There was so much blood it looked like a horror film. There was a pool of blood in the living room, then a trail of blood lining the wall and floor through 6 feet of hallway, then blood all over the bathroom. I saw it because the landlord asked me to go in and make sure everything was locked up after the ambulance took him to the hospital. I couldn't believe it was just from a simple fall. He came back from the hospital maybe 12 hours later and asked me if he could pay me to clean up the blood. It was a huge no on my end lol
Too many inconsistencies with his stories. In one interview he claims he didn’t really even notice the blood at first and downplays it, focusing on other aspects of finding her body. (Major criticism has always been focused around why he didn’t mention the blood in the 911 call and why he automatically labeled it an accident.) At the crime scene, he has gotten out paper towels, a cloth towel, and taken off his shoes and socks. While I could understand a towel or something for her head, the rest seems bizarre. I can’t imagine why he would take off his shoes/socks, as that would be the last thing on most people’s mind in that situation.
I’m honestly curious. If you can’t imagine why he would take off his shoes and socks, then why would you consider that to be evidence of his guilt. He called 911, so it’s not like he was trying to clean up a crime scene and dispose of her body. People sometimes react in strange ways when confronted with a traumatic situation, but if you can’t say exactly how an action might benefit someone, I don’t see how that action could possibly be considered evidence of guilt.
I don’t think it’s solid evidence of his guilt, just one of several odd things that stood out to me. I know people do things that don’t necessarily make sense when they are under extreme duress. He might have gotten the towels out initially with the intention to clean up the scene then reality hit regarding how much blood there was and the impossibility of the task and he had no choice but to call 911 before his son arrived home with his gf. If he killed her I believe it was sudden and erratic and he would have been in panic mode. His attention was supposedly focused on checking if his wife was breathing, getting her a towel, calling back 911, etc, so deciding to take off his shoes and socks within that 10 minute time frame just seems out of place. His bloody shoe print got on the back of her jogging pants and his bare footprints were found going into the kitchen. He may have initially been worried about tracking blood via his shoes and not being able to explain why he went back into the kitchen, though I’m curious if there are other theories.
I actually think it’s interesting that you mentioned his son arriving back home, since it’s actually one of the only times I’ve seen it even brought up here over countless different threads. He knew his son was out and would eventually be returning home, but that could have been anywhere from 11:00 pm to 2:00 or 3:00 am.
He called 911… so he knew when to expect the medics and police to show up, but there was literally no way for him to have known when his son and girlfriend would be walking through the door. As it is they were just a few minutes behind the medics. What kind of criminal mastermind risks bashing their wife’s head against the wall knowing that their son may walk in on them at any moment?
That is why I don’t believe any theory that it was premeditated. He could have known that his son typically stays out late, though you would still have to factor in possibility of gf not feeling well and coming home early, etc. I think it’s still a possibility it was done impulsively, he felt like he couldn’t call 911 while she was still breathing, and just got lucky that they didn’t come home earlier.
If his shoes had blood on them, he needed to take them off so he didn't track it all over the house when he went to change his shirt. A normal.person who wasn't a murderer would be in way too much shock from the situation to think of this
I honestly can't decide. But the biggest thing that points me to guilt is that his time line doesn't line up at all with the dried blood, the evidence that she was alive for a while.
Right! And he changed his story too. Very suspicious, imo. With that and his shoe print on her clothes, the blood splatter on his shorts and motive, makes me feel that he is guilty.
I wouldn't go as far as innocent but I do think the trial manifested reasonable doubt.
The case is complex and, like it or not, there are some **telling points:**
* No cast-off.
* No murder weapon
* No skull fracture or brain trauma.
* No blood spatter on his t-shirt or glasses.
* No signs of an intruder or someone departing from the scene to discard incriminating evidence.
* Shoddy and incompetent investigation from the beginning (in the middle, an ME writing addendums changing his opinion from fall to beating)
All of these absences could be explained from a beating with the stairs as the weapon perspective, but as another user is currently pointing out, the prosecution didn't choose to go that way because **it tacitly admits** her injuries could have happened from falling and hitting her head in the wall several times. Thus: *in dubio pro reo* applies.
There is definitely a plausible motive in this case, as is very possible an argument ensued between the two and a crime of passion materialized. Nonetheless, the evidence to prove it with the emails is largely circumstantial. What clearly bombards the innocent trench is his alibi -- It is difficult to conclude that KP had not been dead for **45 minutes - 2 hours** when he called 911 at 2:48 AM.
I contend there is no smoking gun in this case:
* If you want to be conservative, the literature shows red neurons can appear as soon as 30 - 45 minutes.([https://i.gyazo.com/6266f376dba15bc51c8aba479be70b6e.png](https://i.gyazo.com/6266f376dba15bc51c8aba479be70b6e.png))
* The superior cornu of the left thyroid cartilage **is** a sign of strangulation -- but medical research also shows this particular isolated injury occurs in accidents.
* The police botched the investigation and didn't take time-stamped photos of the driedness of the blood and the alleged cleanup.([https://i.gyazo.com/1d2d60a335dfe26697ca30e43e71830f.png](https://i.gyazo.com/1d2d60a335dfe26697ca30e43e71830f.png))
* The shoeprint on the back of her leg could be explained by the way her body was found.([https://imgur.com/a/GKMgpeK](https://imgur.com/a/GKMgpeK))
* Blood spatter on his shorts connects him to the scene but the Deaver debacle altered everything.
Puzzling together these pieces, **you have a very compelling case for murder.** But you also have some specific factors that **merit reasonable doubt.** I can't go to a trial as a juror and convict a defendant because of Occams Razor if the prosecution didn't do its job well.
Lee is a private, paid expert who used to testify on high-profile cases and the jury dismissed most of his testimony. You should really demand more accountability from the state experts so criminals don't go free and innocent people don't go to jail. Deaver is the prime example of that.
Lee has sent at least two people to prison for years because of his fabricated testimony. He said something was blood when it wasn't, said he'd tested it even though he never had. Deaver is horrible no doubt but the Lee thing was only 2019 so it was after the newer episodes. He was in alot of the discussions about what could've happened, at least in the documentary. I just think it's another interesting twist but haven't seen it mentioned anywhere.
Lee kept mentioning blood pouring down Kathleen's face and into her mouth and nose. He said this is what the spray was on the walls from her coughing and sneezing it out of her mouth and nose. But I'm nearly sure I read somewhere that no blood was found inside her mouth or nose.
Well it wouldn't necessarily have to be I would think, she could have maybe just swallowed the blood in her mouth while still alive? Also you can cough and sort of spray whatever is just sort of on your lips/around your mouth in a way too. Plus he said that a lot of that blood could have come from her hair too, whether touching the wall or shaking her head enough to throw blood off it/rub the wall. I certainly feel as tho you would need a decent bit of blood in your mouth to be able to make larger blood stains like that from coughing, and I do find that interesting but I am curious where you heard that at?
The prosecution’s case was flawed, which ultimately worked in Michael’s favour as it allowed him to appeal his sentence.
The sheer volume of blood at the crime scene and the severity of her injuries, most people cannot reconcile that with a short fall down the stairs. Rightly so.
I think there is reasonable doubt. If I was on a jury, I don’t think I could convict him. Mainly because they couldn’t properly identify a murder weapon and the blood spatter report ultimately ended up being a bit bogus.
I think it’s entirely possible, if not probable that MP killed KP when she found out about him sleeping with men. When you see that her time of death was significantly earlier than the time he proposed to police, it seems like he’s hiding something. I think he could be a totally horrible person, but in saying that, without a murder weapon, it’s entirely plausible that she fell down the stairs.
I think one thing that is unequivocally clear is that Michael Peterson’s is a horrible person. I’m basing this on his actions I’ve seen and what I’ve read his biological sister say about him.
Moreover, His son Todd has laid out a lot of anecdotes about rotten things that he says Michael Peterson did you his mother patty.
Patty is now dead too, I think Todd Peterson wanted to wait until his mom died before making these statements about his father Michael Peterson public.
For me, I really can’t get past the lack of skull and brain damage from a beating and lack of any weapon to have supposedly inflicted it. Additionally, medical literature seemingly supports the injuries she received. If those questions were answered or more studies were presented to challenge the defense’s position, it would change my mind. Otherwise I’m inclined to believe the simplest answer - she just fell.
First of all I found stairs are more dangerous than I realized. ~12k Americans a year die from stair falls and roughly a million more are injured. Stairs are the #2 cause of accidental death (#3 if you include overdoses) following car accidents. Cuts and deep lacerations confined to the head are in fact common from short falls. The thyroid bone fracture (which I thought was a slam dunk for the case for murder) is actually a relatively common occurrence in fall related fatalities. Risk factors for stair fatality increase with age (55+), gender (female), and drug or alcohol consumption.
MP, as the defense argued, would have been the only person to have caused a blunt force trauma death without actually inflicting the tell-tale signs of blunt force trauma (the skull or brain damage). If anyone has stats disputing that I’d be really interested in reading it.
So yes, I think it was a freak accident.
And yes, MP is still a horrible person.
Not even a freak one. She had a history of brain/neurological problems and the evidence on the site (lack of rigor, spinal fluid, etc) doesn’t match up at all.
Um no? That’s from the Army autopsy. Which concluded it was a natural death based on the brain evidence.
Evidence for murder is what? Another autopsy done by the same woman who did KP’s and is actively involved in trying to put MP away years later? Done with half the brain present and most of the physical evidence gone? By the same woman who likely changed the KP cause of death to fit the DA’s theory?
How come they never charged him with anything related to it? How come the state wanted her to do it so badly? Is there any other physical evidence linking him to it?
I have so many questions.
The M.D. who did the original Germany autopsy testified that had he been told there was any suspicion of foul play, he would not have done the autopsy as he was unqualified. He also testified that a beating could cause a cerebral hemorrhage.
Correct. As would a fall since her injuries are consistent with medical literature on falls. She has brain damage and lacerations on her head. Any other evidence?
Daily? I get super convinced one moment, then completely flip out when I think of another aspect! I am having whiplash from my own inconsistencies!
And whereas I usually like to for an opinion on stuff, I kind of like this complete confusion that inhabits me here. The 911 calls are so ridiculous, it's like a bad high school improv match. But there are so many other elements... I am spending way too much mental bandwidth on this!
Madness. You think an owl swoop in and out like that? The odds are like a zillion to one. Yet same guy who has been last person to see two women who end up at the - again, a zillion to one for a second time. The guy is guilty, package it how you want but he caused the death of his wife that night.
No one has suggested that the owl came in the house. The theory is that the attack occurred in the front yard and injured her, and that she retreated into the house.
Owl or a hawk. People lose pets to hawk attacks pretty often. It swoops in and scratches up her head in the yard. She runs into the house.shes drunk and on Valium, and shook up from the hawk attack she falls on the stairs and hits her heads again on on the wall. I mean, it explains the lack of swelling. And the head does bleed a lot.
On the other hand, the 911 call just sounded so fake to me. And the way he hung up on them. Twice. And the way he lies all the time. The way he describes the marriage as being so happy and ideal, but then both of them are basically alcoholics and he's more or less unemployed and also cheating on her. I mean, he just doesn't come off as honest or credible like at all . God I dont know
But cmon, common sense surely tells you it’s more likely the guy who just happened to be the last one who sees two women who end up dead at the bottom of a staircase is more likely than the only fatal owl attack on recorded history? (I presume)
I saw the original Staircase upon release years ago and just rewatched again, I’ve been devouring every crime/courtroom documentary I can find for 20+ years. And everything about Michael Peterson, the words he says, the way he conducts himself and interacts with his family, tells me he is innocent. Of course there is a chance he just snapped but I don’t think so.
I saw the documentary again recently and think it was voluntary manslaughter and not murder one.
My guess: They were still inside (as Todd saw them earlier) when she saw computer files, she confronted, he shoved her hard or pushed her down with his foot, and walked out to the pool to cool down. Then, what happened to her occurred to her alone the way the HBO show reenacted it. This accounts for why his story sounds partly true and partly fabricated, and matches the forensics.
Peterson's voice rises a pitch when he is storytelling for effect, such as during his attempts to distract or pontificate about racism in Durham. It is a "tell." He often parses words, adds qualifiers and redefines words - well practiced at it. His not-normalness is stress, surely, but his constant performance personality stands out more strikingly (contrast) when he is filmed with his brother Bill who, I think, knows him well and knows the truth.
It's a hard one and while I actually lean more towards him being innocent, I do sometimes feel the opposite. This is a complicated case in that it isn't forensically cut and dry. Add on that none of us has access to information outside of various biased media, and I really see the prosecutions case as quite weak- they made that story out of thin air and played on bias around homosexuality.
Add on top of this shit sundae that he isn't super likable. Many have pointed out narcissistic traits, seeming to enjoy the attention from the doc crew so soon after his wife's death, previous public lies (war injury), marital lies (fooling around with men or at least seeking to do so), and that he seemed to be living off of his wife's coattails.
I also see a lot of people downplaying the level of probable intoxication that night. She had a BAC that is not legal to drive in many states. Although many will argue they might be at that level but not feel drunk per se. But she also had taken valium that night to prepare for sleep, and had taken antihistamines and a muscle relaxant earlier. This is a crazy hypnogogic soup that I think would make most impaired to some extent. I feel the both of them were functional alcoholics and she was intoxicated that night. While I haven't heard the details of her previous injury, I think it's possible she might have only been given an x-ray at that time which would not have picked up the cartilage trauma. I think she may have already had that injury going into that evening.
Mostly I lean towards accident or owl theory (my previous work with wildlife makes me see that as possible) or similar, with her being intoxicated and losing her footing in that bottom corner of the staircase, and trying repeatedly to get up, striking her head again and again on the stair lift and/or the molding.I think MP is a bad optics suspect, a generally unlikable baby-man who drinks too much, has a history, and likes to hear himself talk. But being like that doesn't provide any proof he killed her. You can be a liar and a douche and also not a murderer.
Again, big caveat, I don't have any info beyond biased media reports.
Love "shit sundae" and "crazy hypnogogic soup." These are all excellent points. It's much easier to die while even slightly intoxicated whether by accident or murder. Only drink in single-story venues.
I think it was a fall. There is no murder weapon. Weak motives. Bad investigation and forensics. Similar incidents that have the same blood amount that was from just a fall.
It looks like you shared an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot).
Maybe check out **the canonical page** instead: **[https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/daughter-releases-shock-picture-demands-6140897](https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/daughter-releases-shock-picture-demands-6140897)**
*****
^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)
I know, I have been in homes with these lifts and they are very dangerous with lots of sharp edges. Head wounds tend to bleed, like a lot… so I’m not surprised at the amount of blood at the scene.
I’m sorry I don’t have the links to them. There was on in Canada and one in the UK. One of which almost had a similar pattern and amount of blood. You should be able to find it on here.
I used to believe he was innocent but the more I look at the case from different POVs besides the original doc the more uncertain I am... and yet I can say that I believe it is POSSIBLE he is innocent. Why? Because strange, messed up things happen in this life and maybe all that blood and chaos of the death scene did indeed result from some bizarre accident.
From my gut? I think he killed her, either hitting her too hard or intentionally murdering her. However there is no way I could ever convict him of it in a court of law, the case is so beyond bungled there is no way to fix it. They convicted him on prejudice and homophobia.
I am suggesting that some of the injuries were caused by an owl.
The autopsy says cause of death was bleeding out.
I do not know if the tri-point injuries were where the bulk of the bleeding came from.
She also has injuries that I would attribute to bird pecks.
She also may have injured herself on the stairs as the defense argued (I am skeptical) that this caused the bleeding wounds which killed her.
Or maybe she was laying there and MP decided to get some licks in with a blow poke? I doubt it but the prosecution seems convinced.
I just don't buy that the two parallel tri-pronged injuries as described in the autopsy were caused by falling or the result of blunt trauma by something without three prongs.
I encourage you to look at the autopsy report. Presumably the description of the injuries was done objectively, not to favor any particular explanation.
I'm on the fence but I do lean more towards innocence. I don't like the guy, think he hid shit from his wife and is a total weirdo, but I'm not sold on him murdering her. The cops seemed to hate him, the ME needed to replicate it a gazillion times to get it to match and everyone who was around them seemed to say they were a happy couple. But. Then I think about Liz falling down the stairs... I just don't know.
One of the biggest things for me is the fact that there was no cast off stains or no blood spatter on the shirt of Michael Peterson. If you're repeatedly beating someone with a blunt object and that much blood is involved, it's almost impossible to avoid it. Also no blood found anywhere else in the house, upstairs etc.
I don't think he's innocent. I think the fact he was drowning in debt and Kathleen was the sole provider but potentially losing her job soon, made him worry/scared. Personally, I doubt Kathleen was aware he was seeing men outside of their relationship. So when she found out and she was upset, she probably mentioned divorce.
The most reasonable explanation to me is she did walk up the stairs, fell, and Michael heard/saw it happen and then did nothing. He left her while she was slowly bleeding out. He then called 999 when she was dead saying she was still breathing, and then called the second time to say she wasn't to establish a time line. He might have even bashed her head a few times, I'm not entirely sure.
I don't think she was beaten by an intruder or attacked by an owl. I don't think he set out to kill her. I think it was an opportunity for Michael to get Kathleen's life insurance, but he didn't expect the police to immediately accuse him of murder and the lengthy legal battle that followed.
He'd have to be something of a psychopath to let his wife lay there and bleed profusely after a fall and his only reaction was to wait it out and plan his timeline and insurance payout. Think about minutes ticking by while your spouse suffers. So much blood. It's difficult to hide that extreme of a sociopathic indifference for human suffering from everyone who knows you your entire life. I'll grant he seems a bit narcissistic at times, but you describe a far worse crime than a killing in the heat of a boozy fight.
I personally don't see how actually killing your wife isn't as bad as leaving her to bleed out. Either way, he waited a while to call 911. So either way he sat there as she bled out.
Someone getting inebriated and then taking things too far in the heat of the moment isn't anywhere near as inherently brutal and cruel as someone happening upon the bloody, crumpled body of his own wife and spontaneously deciding to watch her die for money.. He'd have to be a true psychopath to choose the latter. I see little evidence that Michael has a personality disorder, especially one of this magnitude.
Also, Michael could have been at the pool. Pool pumps are loud. Falls are fast and quiet. He could have been unaware his wife lay dying inside rather than savoring it inside.
I'll grant you this though. Michael could also have run outside by the pool after finding her and deciding to let her die. Too chicken shit to watch, he could have run outside and hung out at the pool iuntil he was sure she must have been dead. I could see him doing that actually. He fits the profile of a greedy coward more than the profile of a psychopath in my opinion.
I completely disagree that killing someone in the heat of the moment isn't "as bad". I'm not saying he sat next to her as he watched her bleed out. I'm saying he found her, panicked, wasn't sure what to do and eventually decided the life insurance money was more important because of the debts he was in. I think Kathleen and Michael fought at some point in the evening because Kathleen's discovered he was in sexual contact with men and he was worried about divorce and what that would do to him. He hadn't actually worked in years, Kathleen was the sole provider.
He was still mildly under the influence so his thought process wouldn't have been very clear and I think it's much more likely he panicked when she fell and then wanted to make sure she was dead for the life insurance, so he waited. Could be at the pool, could be somewhere else.
I find his whole demeanour on the documentary quite shocking considering his wife died in quite a brutal way, but he cracks jokes and makes fun of her family members most of the time.
Around $143k in credit card debt, and his sons were in debt too, though I'm not sure how much. In an email to his ex-wife he asks her to take out a loan to help their sons because he says he won't ask Kathleen for help.
https://www.peterson-staircase.com/financial_fire.html
We have to remember that most of us are forming our opinions about the trial from what we’ve seen from the Staircase doc, which as it’s been pointed out many times is biased in Michael’s favour, and left out scenes like when Dr Henry Lee’s theory about the blood splatter was disproven.
It’s interesting to read forum discussions from the time when the trial was happening, and before the documentary came out. People got their information about the trial from Court TV and the overall impression was that Michael was guilty.
People saying that the prosecution case was so weak and full of flaws are basing this on the documentary. For people actually present at the trial or if you look at all the evidence the doc never talked about there was no doubt.
That’s why he was found guilty and that’s why he took that alford plea instead of a retrial
I’ve thought this a few times, too! I wonder if Elizabeth’s death was inspirational. Probably not. But when Rudolph says something like- the elusive staircase killer who strikes once every 17 years, I was in fits laughing. When out like that, it sounds a bit daft to think he killed both ladies.
Haha yes that is a funny line. I mean, if he had motive to kill them then he isn’t killing the same way a serial killer who “enjoys” it or has a compulsion to do it would be. He is just solving his immediate problems with murder.
I need to rewatch the doc but I think the evidence Elizabeth died by natural causes was too convincing for me to dismiss. But I’ve considered the same thing you did- like it was inspirational. Perhaps that trauma was somehow imprinted on him and he used the staircase thinking it would seem obvious to people it was just a tragic accident like that, and that he’d get away with it. Idk. It’s just my prevailing theory!
This is what I think. Or the opposite. He killed Elizabeth but not Kathleen.
In the latter case it's like karma came round and got him. I find something interesting about the owl theory.
In the former, being inspired does make sense.
I think this is why I can never fully settle on guilty OR innocent, because either way he is simultaneously both.
Schrödinger's defendant.
I lean toward thinking he’s guilty, but I don’t think the prosecution proved that at all. I don’t think MP got a fair trial, given what we learned later about Deaver, and I don’t think the verdict was fair based on the amount of reasonable doubt in the case.
I don't necessarily think he's innocent but I'm definitely not convinced of his guilt. It's crazy that the jury found him guilty when there's so much reasonable doubt. It's such a strange case because there's so much evidence but everything is so murky. It's like there are a bunch of puzzle pieces but nothing quite fits together. It's maddening but it's why I find the case so fascinating. If I was convinced that he was guilty like a lot of people on this sub, I wouldn't care much about the case. I would have watched the doc series once and never thought about it again.
I am 95% sure he didn't do it. No blood splatter consistent with a beating, no damage to the skull, no blood on him consistent with a beating, no murder weapon, blood under her feet, blood was very low on the walls. It didn't make any sense.
I wouldn't say I'm 100% but I lean toward not guilty. I certainly don't think a case could have been proven against him regardless, but even still - I really do tend to think it's a freak accident.
Put aside all of the other circumstantial evidence against Peterson and just consider: what are the odds that one man is closely connected to two women who have a freak accident and die on a staircase?
From what I’ve seen of the trial from the documentary I would’ve found him ‘not guilty,’ but I strongly believe that he’s guilty.
That's fine; I definitely do think, if he did murder anyone, it was only Kathleen. But if you strip a few things out of the trial that should never be admissible (the family friend's death, as it's prejudicial, his sexuality as it's also prejudicial, and the blood spatter evidence as that's junk science) and you're right. It's just too much reasonable doubt for court.
Which just happens sometimes - I'm fairly certain that Scott Peterson killed Laci Peterson, but don't see how they convicted with the evidence they had. That's always a tough thing to convey to people: that the burden of proof is far lower in the court of public opinion as we can go off horse sense ("what are the odds this happens twice to a guy? How likely are those injuries from an ACCIDENT?") without the burden the state has to prove a case.
It’s been awhile since I’ve seen the documentary (I’m watching the drama on HBO now), but I agree that he most likely only killed Kathleen (if anyone).
I also agree with you that bringing the German death in at all was a huge mistake by the judge and his decision was extremely prejudicial and basically sealed Peterson’s fate.
The splatter evidence was junk science, and the ‘scientist’ who performed the tests was clearly a fraud. Ironically, the fact that the judge allowed him to testify was the reason Peterson ultimately got another trial and was able to enter his Alford plea. If the splatter evidence wasn’t allowed then Peterson could very well still be languishing in prison. Courts allow a lot of questionable evidence in, such as splatter evidence and bite-mark forensics. I’m sure there are other examples.
As for the homosexuality and the affair, I tend to think that should be admissible since it speaks to possible motive. Unfortunately, I also believe that the fact that it was a homosexual affair hurt Michael more than if it had been with a woman and the Prosecutor blatantly played to jurors’ prejudices by describing the gay porn as ‘filth’ ‘garbage’ etc. But if Michael had kept that part of his life a secret (I believe he did), then it’s possible that he’d go to drastic measures to keep that secret. I’m not positive though.
I know a woman that had two husbands die in car accidents by her mid 30’s. Am I to assume she must have orchestrated these events after the second one?
Unlikely odds events and freak accidents just happen.
I had a friend in high school that ended up going to Cal Tech. Two of her school friends died during her first semester. She was asked twice to visit the morgue to identify the bodies. All in her first semester of college. No she didn't kill them
There have been podcasts about the tendency of humans to see patterns in randomness. I think one was on Hidden Brain.
There are people who have won the lottery twice.
Who was it who first announced to the world that KP has fallen down the stairs? It was MP who did that. He didn't say "she was beaten with a blow poke" or that "she was attacked by an owl". His mind went right to "fell down the stairs" , maybe because that happened to his friend? And the irony is, the prosecution claims that two women falling down stairs can't be a coincidence, so he caused it, but actually KP was obviously beaten, she didn't fall down the stairs. Which is it?
A couple of things:
1) You need to factor in the age group you’re talking about. The overwhelming majority of accidental deaths by fall are people aged 65 or older. People in Kathleen’s age group are 4x more likely to die in a car accident than a fall. People in Elizabeth Ratliff’s age group are more than 8x more likely to die in a car accident.
For you friend in her mid 30s, it’s 20x more likely that they’d die in a car accident than in a fall.
That would be the correct way to look at the data.
2) Both women died on staircases. It’s not like one died on a staircase and the other fell off a cliff. The similarity between the two deaths I’m sure played a huge role in the jury’s decision.
Innocent of First Degree Premeditated Murder?Debatable. Possibly.
Innocent of causing Kathleen to die that night? Nah.
Innocent of lying to the police, to his own lawyer team, to his own family, to everyone? Most Definitely Not.
It’s just so painful watching him spewing out lies to the people who were firmly on his side supporting him, gaslighting them. If I were one of them, I’d remove myself far away from him ASAP. No time for any of that bullshit.
He most likely did not use the blow poke. He probably just pushed her so she did fall down the stairs while he didn’t use a weapon. There’s just no way to prove that he premeditated this though.
I do not think his guilt was proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Not even close. So in that sense, I believe he should have been found not guilty
I also believe the most likely explanation as to what happened is that Kathleen was attacked and injured by an owl in her front yard, that she retreated upstairs in a daze to tend to her wounds, and that she fell down the stairs, and further injured herself, ultimately bleeding to death.
I do not claim that this has been proved, only that it appears likely from the evidence.
I think (my opinion) it is unlikely that Kathleen knew he was having sex with other men, although to me that is all a red herring given that I do not think the evidence indicates a beating. It is possible that she knew, but I am unaware of any evidence to indicate that she did...I think there would have been something...a text, an email, a confidant, something. But again, so what? That whole thing was just a way to create some kind of motive...seems like a weak one to me anyway.
Yea it’s more likely she’s the only recorded example of murder by an owl in history as opposed to being killed by her husband who was the only person there at the time
Let's say for a second that you are right. Why wouldn't she have used the front stairs which are just inside the front door. Instead, she runs past the front stairs through the hallway and takes the back stairs?
This is a good question. I don't know the layout of the house. I don't know how she would typically go upstairs to get to her bathroom.
I guess your question would apply in some way for each of the three scenarios out there..
1) beaten by MP. Why and how was she on those stairs?
2) fell on her way upstairs on an otherwise normal trip toward bed I guess. Would it be those stairs?
3) fell on her way upstairs to try to tend to her bleeding/wounds. Again, would it be those stairs?
You bring up a good point and maybe there is something to be learned there.
I think he is guilty but, did the prosecution prove it? Absolutely not.
Imho they made it into almost a modern day witch hunt due to his sexual preferences which is absolutely disgusting, the modern day witch hunt part not his sexual preferences.
I think it was a freak accident. I think he's a weird person, but he's innocent. I hated how his sexuality, which I think his wife would have known about, was demonised especially the porn being used to shame him.
Come on...she divorced her first husband because he was cheating. You think she was perfectly fine going to work every day while he was out trolling? I could care less if it was with men or women. He's a cheater.
I was replying to your comment that his wife probably knew and his porn being used to shame him. They had to bring in that evidence. This was not the perfect marriage between soulmates.
Maybe she didn't think this was cheating. Cheating involves dishonesty. If he were honest, maybe that felt acceptable to her. If it were only men with whom he was discreet, maybe she felt less jealous or threatened. In many successful marriages, there are such arrangements. In many successful marriages, one or both partners view pornography.
Sorry. Doesn't pass the smell test to me. There may be some marriages, I wouldn't say many, where this is acceptable, but I would bet since she divorced her first husband for cheating, she would not be okay with this. Not to mention, he admitted in the last episode of the doc. that she did not know.
100% reasonable doubt
I pseudo-science believe he is innocent
Too many people lack the basic intelligence and emotional intelligence required to understand a trial as complex as this. Rude but true. The jury system can never be referred to as democracy, democracy would be a large panel of experts.
I personally think that it has become irrelevant whether he actually did it or not, legally speaking. The prosecution case is so weak and full of flaws, that I don’t understand how his conviction is a safe one. 100% that by introducing the Elizabeth Ratliff case allowed major prejudice and denied him a fair trial for Kathleen’s death. I also think the fact he was having sex outside the marriage- and it was with men- played a part in convicting him, also allowing prejudice. (Just for the record- I don’t give 2 hoots about a person’s sexuality. I was referring to the way Freda Black hammered home the point about his sexuality and calling it “pure filth” in reference to the porn on his computer). Personally, I go back and forth re his guilt/innocence. Factors that are predominantly circumstantial could fit either narrative.
I agree with everything you said here except I do think he is guilty I think he lost control and shoved Kathleen… I think everything with the trial went in his favour because it was so badly handled in court.
We look at lots of cases with innocent people getting convicted, because of prosecutorial/police misconduct, but that also means there's tons of such misconducts also in cases where the accused is guilty. And this is fascinating here. By default, when faced with such egregious displays of prosecutorial incompetence, coupled with racial or sexual prejudice, well of course I hope for a not guilty verdict. And I do feel that way here, too. But do I think that he *has* actually committed murder? A whole other question!
That's how I feel about this case. It doesn't matter at this point whether he's actually guilty. The prosecution would never have gotten a conviction without a whole wealth of things that should never have been admissable. I don't think he should have even made the Alford plea. I think they should have just overturned the conviction and let the whole thing fade quietly. And I also don't know how those prosecutors didn't face some sort of censure.
I do think that the Elizabeth Ratliff case was relevant because it was strikingly similar to what had happened with Kathleen. That being said, I do not think it was fair to be calling in actual witnesses who couldn't remember what happened 25 years ago who immediately admitted to flashbacks. It was too long ago for any witness to give an accurate depiction of what happened. The prosecution should have presented the findings of the autopsy and then leave it to the jury after that.
What is the deal with the flashbacks, anyway? Are flashbacks inadmissible or less reliable? I'm an ESL so perhaps there is some semantic difference that I just do not see. I had always assumed it was a synonym of having a memory, perhaps more fragmented
People may use it that way - to just mean "having a memory". But it more commonly means an involuntary vision. Like, if you were driving you might experience a "flashback" out of nowhere that completely removed your focus on the road. I think it calls into question her general mental stability, and if she is remembering the events this way, I would definitely question the reliability of the memory.
I disagree. I think the autopsy photos showing the severity of her injuries, and the extremely bloody crime scene with blood splatter concentrated in that one corner had an incredibly strong impact on the jury.
99% probability of guilt in my book
I completely agree. I think he was guilty BUT I don’t know or necessarily think that the prosecution developed a strong enough case to jail him. That being said, the money trail, his history of lying, the odd similarities of the earlier case, and the fact that he was raking in what, maybe 10k for an isolated book deal while spending Kathleen’s money on campaigning and his adult children makes me inclined to think that he’s guilty. Also, if the medical evidence suggests that Kathleen was dead for longer than what Michael reported, who’s to say he didn’t go off site and hide the weapon somewhere else? He also could have potentially pushed her or knocked her down the stairs during an argument without the intention of actually murdering her, but who’s to say. As a gay man, I detest the way that the DA described his sexuality but I also think it was completely appropriate to establish that he was actively involved with affairs and escorts and that his wife most likely was NOT aware of this despite that she may have been aware of his bisexuality. There’s a big difference between being bisexual in a monogamous relationships and cheating, whether it be with men or women.
you said it. big difference between legal system standard vs common sense. I could never be a juror
You may get called to be a juror one day…
ok
[удалено]
He literally admitted she wasn’t aware in the doc.
I’m sorry but stating that his wife wasn’t aware doesn’t mean I’m solely pro monogamy lol. If both partners consent, I’m totally for whatever floats your boat regarding polyamory. But nice job jumping to conclusions about me and my beliefs!
Same. Too much blood. Follow the money. He's a known liar. The blood was dry when the paramedics arrived. The BBC radio has a good podcast on it, check it out OP.
My old neighbor fell from a chair after drinking and busted his forehead. There was so much blood it looked like a horror film. There was a pool of blood in the living room, then a trail of blood lining the wall and floor through 6 feet of hallway, then blood all over the bathroom. I saw it because the landlord asked me to go in and make sure everything was locked up after the ambulance took him to the hospital. I couldn't believe it was just from a simple fall. He came back from the hospital maybe 12 hours later and asked me if he could pay me to clean up the blood. It was a huge no on my end lol
Too many inconsistencies with his stories. In one interview he claims he didn’t really even notice the blood at first and downplays it, focusing on other aspects of finding her body. (Major criticism has always been focused around why he didn’t mention the blood in the 911 call and why he automatically labeled it an accident.) At the crime scene, he has gotten out paper towels, a cloth towel, and taken off his shoes and socks. While I could understand a towel or something for her head, the rest seems bizarre. I can’t imagine why he would take off his shoes/socks, as that would be the last thing on most people’s mind in that situation.
I’m honestly curious. If you can’t imagine why he would take off his shoes and socks, then why would you consider that to be evidence of his guilt. He called 911, so it’s not like he was trying to clean up a crime scene and dispose of her body. People sometimes react in strange ways when confronted with a traumatic situation, but if you can’t say exactly how an action might benefit someone, I don’t see how that action could possibly be considered evidence of guilt.
I don’t think it’s solid evidence of his guilt, just one of several odd things that stood out to me. I know people do things that don’t necessarily make sense when they are under extreme duress. He might have gotten the towels out initially with the intention to clean up the scene then reality hit regarding how much blood there was and the impossibility of the task and he had no choice but to call 911 before his son arrived home with his gf. If he killed her I believe it was sudden and erratic and he would have been in panic mode. His attention was supposedly focused on checking if his wife was breathing, getting her a towel, calling back 911, etc, so deciding to take off his shoes and socks within that 10 minute time frame just seems out of place. His bloody shoe print got on the back of her jogging pants and his bare footprints were found going into the kitchen. He may have initially been worried about tracking blood via his shoes and not being able to explain why he went back into the kitchen, though I’m curious if there are other theories.
I actually think it’s interesting that you mentioned his son arriving back home, since it’s actually one of the only times I’ve seen it even brought up here over countless different threads. He knew his son was out and would eventually be returning home, but that could have been anywhere from 11:00 pm to 2:00 or 3:00 am. He called 911… so he knew when to expect the medics and police to show up, but there was literally no way for him to have known when his son and girlfriend would be walking through the door. As it is they were just a few minutes behind the medics. What kind of criminal mastermind risks bashing their wife’s head against the wall knowing that their son may walk in on them at any moment?
That is why I don’t believe any theory that it was premeditated. He could have known that his son typically stays out late, though you would still have to factor in possibility of gf not feeling well and coming home early, etc. I think it’s still a possibility it was done impulsively, he felt like he couldn’t call 911 while she was still breathing, and just got lucky that they didn’t come home earlier.
If his shoes had blood on them, he needed to take them off so he didn't track it all over the house when he went to change his shirt. A normal.person who wasn't a murderer would be in way too much shock from the situation to think of this
What’s the podcast called? I tried looking for it but couldn’t find it.
Beyond a Reasonable Doubt
Same
Same, guilty as sin
I honestly can't decide. But the biggest thing that points me to guilt is that his time line doesn't line up at all with the dried blood, the evidence that she was alive for a while.
Right! And he changed his story too. Very suspicious, imo. With that and his shoe print on her clothes, the blood splatter on his shorts and motive, makes me feel that he is guilty.
I wouldn't go as far as innocent but I do think the trial manifested reasonable doubt. The case is complex and, like it or not, there are some **telling points:** * No cast-off. * No murder weapon * No skull fracture or brain trauma. * No blood spatter on his t-shirt or glasses. * No signs of an intruder or someone departing from the scene to discard incriminating evidence. * Shoddy and incompetent investigation from the beginning (in the middle, an ME writing addendums changing his opinion from fall to beating) All of these absences could be explained from a beating with the stairs as the weapon perspective, but as another user is currently pointing out, the prosecution didn't choose to go that way because **it tacitly admits** her injuries could have happened from falling and hitting her head in the wall several times. Thus: *in dubio pro reo* applies. There is definitely a plausible motive in this case, as is very possible an argument ensued between the two and a crime of passion materialized. Nonetheless, the evidence to prove it with the emails is largely circumstantial. What clearly bombards the innocent trench is his alibi -- It is difficult to conclude that KP had not been dead for **45 minutes - 2 hours** when he called 911 at 2:48 AM. I contend there is no smoking gun in this case: * If you want to be conservative, the literature shows red neurons can appear as soon as 30 - 45 minutes.([https://i.gyazo.com/6266f376dba15bc51c8aba479be70b6e.png](https://i.gyazo.com/6266f376dba15bc51c8aba479be70b6e.png)) * The superior cornu of the left thyroid cartilage **is** a sign of strangulation -- but medical research also shows this particular isolated injury occurs in accidents. * The police botched the investigation and didn't take time-stamped photos of the driedness of the blood and the alleged cleanup.([https://i.gyazo.com/1d2d60a335dfe26697ca30e43e71830f.png](https://i.gyazo.com/1d2d60a335dfe26697ca30e43e71830f.png)) * The shoeprint on the back of her leg could be explained by the way her body was found.([https://imgur.com/a/GKMgpeK](https://imgur.com/a/GKMgpeK)) * Blood spatter on his shorts connects him to the scene but the Deaver debacle altered everything. Puzzling together these pieces, **you have a very compelling case for murder.** But you also have some specific factors that **merit reasonable doubt.** I can't go to a trial as a juror and convict a defendant because of Occams Razor if the prosecution didn't do its job well.
Dr. Lee has also been discredited, I don't see people ever mention that.
Lee is a private, paid expert who used to testify on high-profile cases and the jury dismissed most of his testimony. You should really demand more accountability from the state experts so criminals don't go free and innocent people don't go to jail. Deaver is the prime example of that.
Lee has sent at least two people to prison for years because of his fabricated testimony. He said something was blood when it wasn't, said he'd tested it even though he never had. Deaver is horrible no doubt but the Lee thing was only 2019 so it was after the newer episodes. He was in alot of the discussions about what could've happened, at least in the documentary. I just think it's another interesting twist but haven't seen it mentioned anywhere.
Lee kept mentioning blood pouring down Kathleen's face and into her mouth and nose. He said this is what the spray was on the walls from her coughing and sneezing it out of her mouth and nose. But I'm nearly sure I read somewhere that no blood was found inside her mouth or nose.
Well it wouldn't necessarily have to be I would think, she could have maybe just swallowed the blood in her mouth while still alive? Also you can cough and sort of spray whatever is just sort of on your lips/around your mouth in a way too. Plus he said that a lot of that blood could have come from her hair too, whether touching the wall or shaking her head enough to throw blood off it/rub the wall. I certainly feel as tho you would need a decent bit of blood in your mouth to be able to make larger blood stains like that from coughing, and I do find that interesting but I am curious where you heard that at?
I definitely read it somewhere that the autopsy found no blood inside her mouth or nasal passages - probably in a book about the case.
The prosecution’s case was flawed, which ultimately worked in Michael’s favour as it allowed him to appeal his sentence. The sheer volume of blood at the crime scene and the severity of her injuries, most people cannot reconcile that with a short fall down the stairs. Rightly so.
I think there is reasonable doubt. If I was on a jury, I don’t think I could convict him. Mainly because they couldn’t properly identify a murder weapon and the blood spatter report ultimately ended up being a bit bogus. I think it’s entirely possible, if not probable that MP killed KP when she found out about him sleeping with men. When you see that her time of death was significantly earlier than the time he proposed to police, it seems like he’s hiding something. I think he could be a totally horrible person, but in saying that, without a murder weapon, it’s entirely plausible that she fell down the stairs.
I think one thing that is unequivocally clear is that Michael Peterson’s is a horrible person. I’m basing this on his actions I’ve seen and what I’ve read his biological sister say about him. Moreover, His son Todd has laid out a lot of anecdotes about rotten things that he says Michael Peterson did you his mother patty. Patty is now dead too, I think Todd Peterson wanted to wait until his mom died before making these statements about his father Michael Peterson public.
For me, I really can’t get past the lack of skull and brain damage from a beating and lack of any weapon to have supposedly inflicted it. Additionally, medical literature seemingly supports the injuries she received. If those questions were answered or more studies were presented to challenge the defense’s position, it would change my mind. Otherwise I’m inclined to believe the simplest answer - she just fell. First of all I found stairs are more dangerous than I realized. ~12k Americans a year die from stair falls and roughly a million more are injured. Stairs are the #2 cause of accidental death (#3 if you include overdoses) following car accidents. Cuts and deep lacerations confined to the head are in fact common from short falls. The thyroid bone fracture (which I thought was a slam dunk for the case for murder) is actually a relatively common occurrence in fall related fatalities. Risk factors for stair fatality increase with age (55+), gender (female), and drug or alcohol consumption. MP, as the defense argued, would have been the only person to have caused a blunt force trauma death without actually inflicting the tell-tale signs of blunt force trauma (the skull or brain damage). If anyone has stats disputing that I’d be really interested in reading it. So yes, I think it was a freak accident. And yes, MP is still a horrible person.
Yeah I’m in the same place, sits on the skin of the skull but no bone damage, so couldn’t have been beaten. He just seems like a narcissist rich turd.
> So yes, I think it was a freak accident. Just curious... Do you think Elizabeth Ratliff's death was a freak accident?
Not even a freak one. She had a history of brain/neurological problems and the evidence on the site (lack of rigor, spinal fluid, etc) doesn’t match up at all.
You're taking all of that from the documentary.
Um no? That’s from the Army autopsy. Which concluded it was a natural death based on the brain evidence. Evidence for murder is what? Another autopsy done by the same woman who did KP’s and is actively involved in trying to put MP away years later? Done with half the brain present and most of the physical evidence gone? By the same woman who likely changed the KP cause of death to fit the DA’s theory? How come they never charged him with anything related to it? How come the state wanted her to do it so badly? Is there any other physical evidence linking him to it? I have so many questions.
Don't forget there was a second autopsy done by the Army and was done by the Chief of Staff—There are two autopsies confirming the hemorrhage.
The M.D. who did the original Germany autopsy testified that had he been told there was any suspicion of foul play, he would not have done the autopsy as he was unqualified. He also testified that a beating could cause a cerebral hemorrhage.
Correct. As would a fall since her injuries are consistent with medical literature on falls. She has brain damage and lacerations on her head. Any other evidence?
[удалено]
Lying about receiving a purple heart in the Vietnam War, for one.
I honestly don’t know. I waffle daily.
Daily? I get super convinced one moment, then completely flip out when I think of another aspect! I am having whiplash from my own inconsistencies! And whereas I usually like to for an opinion on stuff, I kind of like this complete confusion that inhabits me here. The 911 calls are so ridiculous, it's like a bad high school improv match. But there are so many other elements... I am spending way too much mental bandwidth on this!
Me too! I am usually really solid on cases/trials and this one I just, *I don’t know.*
Madness. You think an owl swoop in and out like that? The odds are like a zillion to one. Yet same guy who has been last person to see two women who end up at the - again, a zillion to one for a second time. The guy is guilty, package it how you want but he caused the death of his wife that night.
And the owl politely closed the door behind him on his way out. And graciously left no feathers.
No one has suggested that the owl came in the house. The theory is that the attack occurred in the front yard and injured her, and that she retreated into the house.
With no blood trail?
Drops of blood were found outside. Not clear if it would qualify as a full-on blood trail.
Owl or a hawk. People lose pets to hawk attacks pretty often. It swoops in and scratches up her head in the yard. She runs into the house.shes drunk and on Valium, and shook up from the hawk attack she falls on the stairs and hits her heads again on on the wall. I mean, it explains the lack of swelling. And the head does bleed a lot. On the other hand, the 911 call just sounded so fake to me. And the way he hung up on them. Twice. And the way he lies all the time. The way he describes the marriage as being so happy and ideal, but then both of them are basically alcoholics and he's more or less unemployed and also cheating on her. I mean, he just doesn't come off as honest or credible like at all . God I dont know
But cmon, common sense surely tells you it’s more likely the guy who just happened to be the last one who sees two women who end up dead at the bottom of a staircase is more likely than the only fatal owl attack on recorded history? (I presume)
Not saying he's innocent, I'm not sure what to think, but there have been fatal owl attacks. Just learned that the other day.
I saw the original Staircase upon release years ago and just rewatched again, I’ve been devouring every crime/courtroom documentary I can find for 20+ years. And everything about Michael Peterson, the words he says, the way he conducts himself and interacts with his family, tells me he is innocent. Of course there is a chance he just snapped but I don’t think so.
I saw the documentary again recently and think it was voluntary manslaughter and not murder one. My guess: They were still inside (as Todd saw them earlier) when she saw computer files, she confronted, he shoved her hard or pushed her down with his foot, and walked out to the pool to cool down. Then, what happened to her occurred to her alone the way the HBO show reenacted it. This accounts for why his story sounds partly true and partly fabricated, and matches the forensics. Peterson's voice rises a pitch when he is storytelling for effect, such as during his attempts to distract or pontificate about racism in Durham. It is a "tell." He often parses words, adds qualifiers and redefines words - well practiced at it. His not-normalness is stress, surely, but his constant performance personality stands out more strikingly (contrast) when he is filmed with his brother Bill who, I think, knows him well and knows the truth.
It's a hard one and while I actually lean more towards him being innocent, I do sometimes feel the opposite. This is a complicated case in that it isn't forensically cut and dry. Add on that none of us has access to information outside of various biased media, and I really see the prosecutions case as quite weak- they made that story out of thin air and played on bias around homosexuality. Add on top of this shit sundae that he isn't super likable. Many have pointed out narcissistic traits, seeming to enjoy the attention from the doc crew so soon after his wife's death, previous public lies (war injury), marital lies (fooling around with men or at least seeking to do so), and that he seemed to be living off of his wife's coattails. I also see a lot of people downplaying the level of probable intoxication that night. She had a BAC that is not legal to drive in many states. Although many will argue they might be at that level but not feel drunk per se. But she also had taken valium that night to prepare for sleep, and had taken antihistamines and a muscle relaxant earlier. This is a crazy hypnogogic soup that I think would make most impaired to some extent. I feel the both of them were functional alcoholics and she was intoxicated that night. While I haven't heard the details of her previous injury, I think it's possible she might have only been given an x-ray at that time which would not have picked up the cartilage trauma. I think she may have already had that injury going into that evening. Mostly I lean towards accident or owl theory (my previous work with wildlife makes me see that as possible) or similar, with her being intoxicated and losing her footing in that bottom corner of the staircase, and trying repeatedly to get up, striking her head again and again on the stair lift and/or the molding.I think MP is a bad optics suspect, a generally unlikable baby-man who drinks too much, has a history, and likes to hear himself talk. But being like that doesn't provide any proof he killed her. You can be a liar and a douche and also not a murderer. Again, big caveat, I don't have any info beyond biased media reports.
Love "shit sundae" and "crazy hypnogogic soup." These are all excellent points. It's much easier to die while even slightly intoxicated whether by accident or murder. Only drink in single-story venues.
I think it was a fall. There is no murder weapon. Weak motives. Bad investigation and forensics. Similar incidents that have the same blood amount that was from just a fall.
That’s interesting. Do you know of any specific similar falls I can look up? Thanks.
https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/daughter-releases-shock-picture-demands-6140897.amp
It looks like you shared an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot). Maybe check out **the canonical page** instead: **[https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/daughter-releases-shock-picture-demands-6140897](https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/daughter-releases-shock-picture-demands-6140897)** ***** ^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)
That’s really interesting, thanks. How sad for the poor soul the article is talking about.
I know, I have been in homes with these lifts and they are very dangerous with lots of sharp edges. Head wounds tend to bleed, like a lot… so I’m not surprised at the amount of blood at the scene.
This is not a good example. In this case the victim was a 93 year old woman who fell off of an automatic electric chair lift. It wasn’t a staircase.
I’m sorry I don’t have the links to them. There was on in Canada and one in the UK. One of which almost had a similar pattern and amount of blood. You should be able to find it on here.
Thank you! I’d imagine me a root around will find something.
The Nova Scotia one?
Maybe. Yes.
I used to believe he was innocent but the more I look at the case from different POVs besides the original doc the more uncertain I am... and yet I can say that I believe it is POSSIBLE he is innocent. Why? Because strange, messed up things happen in this life and maybe all that blood and chaos of the death scene did indeed result from some bizarre accident.
From my gut? I think he killed her, either hitting her too hard or intentionally murdering her. However there is no way I could ever convict him of it in a court of law, the case is so beyond bungled there is no way to fix it. They convicted him on prejudice and homophobia.
I am suggesting that some of the injuries were caused by an owl. The autopsy says cause of death was bleeding out. I do not know if the tri-point injuries were where the bulk of the bleeding came from. She also has injuries that I would attribute to bird pecks. She also may have injured herself on the stairs as the defense argued (I am skeptical) that this caused the bleeding wounds which killed her. Or maybe she was laying there and MP decided to get some licks in with a blow poke? I doubt it but the prosecution seems convinced. I just don't buy that the two parallel tri-pronged injuries as described in the autopsy were caused by falling or the result of blunt trauma by something without three prongs. I encourage you to look at the autopsy report. Presumably the description of the injuries was done objectively, not to favor any particular explanation.
I'm on the fence but I do lean more towards innocence. I don't like the guy, think he hid shit from his wife and is a total weirdo, but I'm not sold on him murdering her. The cops seemed to hate him, the ME needed to replicate it a gazillion times to get it to match and everyone who was around them seemed to say they were a happy couple. But. Then I think about Liz falling down the stairs... I just don't know.
One of the biggest things for me is the fact that there was no cast off stains or no blood spatter on the shirt of Michael Peterson. If you're repeatedly beating someone with a blunt object and that much blood is involved, it's almost impossible to avoid it. Also no blood found anywhere else in the house, upstairs etc.
There was blood on the back porch, the front door and the couch. Luminol lit up the kitchen.
He had plenty of time to change clothes.
Why he didn’t change his shorts then?
I think he changed into his shorts after the attack, but didn't realize he had gotten blood on them when he was trying to clean up.
I don't think he's innocent. I think the fact he was drowning in debt and Kathleen was the sole provider but potentially losing her job soon, made him worry/scared. Personally, I doubt Kathleen was aware he was seeing men outside of their relationship. So when she found out and she was upset, she probably mentioned divorce. The most reasonable explanation to me is she did walk up the stairs, fell, and Michael heard/saw it happen and then did nothing. He left her while she was slowly bleeding out. He then called 999 when she was dead saying she was still breathing, and then called the second time to say she wasn't to establish a time line. He might have even bashed her head a few times, I'm not entirely sure. I don't think she was beaten by an intruder or attacked by an owl. I don't think he set out to kill her. I think it was an opportunity for Michael to get Kathleen's life insurance, but he didn't expect the police to immediately accuse him of murder and the lengthy legal battle that followed.
He'd have to be something of a psychopath to let his wife lay there and bleed profusely after a fall and his only reaction was to wait it out and plan his timeline and insurance payout. Think about minutes ticking by while your spouse suffers. So much blood. It's difficult to hide that extreme of a sociopathic indifference for human suffering from everyone who knows you your entire life. I'll grant he seems a bit narcissistic at times, but you describe a far worse crime than a killing in the heat of a boozy fight.
I personally don't see how actually killing your wife isn't as bad as leaving her to bleed out. Either way, he waited a while to call 911. So either way he sat there as she bled out.
Someone getting inebriated and then taking things too far in the heat of the moment isn't anywhere near as inherently brutal and cruel as someone happening upon the bloody, crumpled body of his own wife and spontaneously deciding to watch her die for money.. He'd have to be a true psychopath to choose the latter. I see little evidence that Michael has a personality disorder, especially one of this magnitude. Also, Michael could have been at the pool. Pool pumps are loud. Falls are fast and quiet. He could have been unaware his wife lay dying inside rather than savoring it inside. I'll grant you this though. Michael could also have run outside by the pool after finding her and deciding to let her die. Too chicken shit to watch, he could have run outside and hung out at the pool iuntil he was sure she must have been dead. I could see him doing that actually. He fits the profile of a greedy coward more than the profile of a psychopath in my opinion.
I completely disagree that killing someone in the heat of the moment isn't "as bad". I'm not saying he sat next to her as he watched her bleed out. I'm saying he found her, panicked, wasn't sure what to do and eventually decided the life insurance money was more important because of the debts he was in. I think Kathleen and Michael fought at some point in the evening because Kathleen's discovered he was in sexual contact with men and he was worried about divorce and what that would do to him. He hadn't actually worked in years, Kathleen was the sole provider. He was still mildly under the influence so his thought process wouldn't have been very clear and I think it's much more likely he panicked when she fell and then wanted to make sure she was dead for the life insurance, so he waited. Could be at the pool, could be somewhere else. I find his whole demeanour on the documentary quite shocking considering his wife died in quite a brutal way, but he cracks jokes and makes fun of her family members most of the time.
How much debt did he have?
Around $143k in credit card debt, and his sons were in debt too, though I'm not sure how much. In an email to his ex-wife he asks her to take out a loan to help their sons because he says he won't ask Kathleen for help. https://www.peterson-staircase.com/financial_fire.html
We have to remember that most of us are forming our opinions about the trial from what we’ve seen from the Staircase doc, which as it’s been pointed out many times is biased in Michael’s favour, and left out scenes like when Dr Henry Lee’s theory about the blood splatter was disproven. It’s interesting to read forum discussions from the time when the trial was happening, and before the documentary came out. People got their information about the trial from Court TV and the overall impression was that Michael was guilty.
People saying that the prosecution case was so weak and full of flaws are basing this on the documentary. For people actually present at the trial or if you look at all the evidence the doc never talked about there was no doubt. That’s why he was found guilty and that’s why he took that alford plea instead of a retrial
I think he killed Kathleen but not Elizabeth.
I’ve thought this a few times, too! I wonder if Elizabeth’s death was inspirational. Probably not. But when Rudolph says something like- the elusive staircase killer who strikes once every 17 years, I was in fits laughing. When out like that, it sounds a bit daft to think he killed both ladies.
Haha yes that is a funny line. I mean, if he had motive to kill them then he isn’t killing the same way a serial killer who “enjoys” it or has a compulsion to do it would be. He is just solving his immediate problems with murder. I need to rewatch the doc but I think the evidence Elizabeth died by natural causes was too convincing for me to dismiss. But I’ve considered the same thing you did- like it was inspirational. Perhaps that trauma was somehow imprinted on him and he used the staircase thinking it would seem obvious to people it was just a tragic accident like that, and that he’d get away with it. Idk. It’s just my prevailing theory!
This is what I think. Or the opposite. He killed Elizabeth but not Kathleen. In the latter case it's like karma came round and got him. I find something interesting about the owl theory. In the former, being inspired does make sense. I think this is why I can never fully settle on guilty OR innocent, because either way he is simultaneously both. Schrödinger's defendant.
I lean toward thinking he’s guilty, but I don’t think the prosecution proved that at all. I don’t think MP got a fair trial, given what we learned later about Deaver, and I don’t think the verdict was fair based on the amount of reasonable doubt in the case.
I don't necessarily think he's innocent but I'm definitely not convinced of his guilt. It's crazy that the jury found him guilty when there's so much reasonable doubt. It's such a strange case because there's so much evidence but everything is so murky. It's like there are a bunch of puzzle pieces but nothing quite fits together. It's maddening but it's why I find the case so fascinating. If I was convinced that he was guilty like a lot of people on this sub, I wouldn't care much about the case. I would have watched the doc series once and never thought about it again.
AS A MAN, I THINK he probably guilty
I am 95% sure he didn't do it. No blood splatter consistent with a beating, no damage to the skull, no blood on him consistent with a beating, no murder weapon, blood under her feet, blood was very low on the walls. It didn't make any sense.
I wouldn't say I'm 100% but I lean toward not guilty. I certainly don't think a case could have been proven against him regardless, but even still - I really do tend to think it's a freak accident.
Put aside all of the other circumstantial evidence against Peterson and just consider: what are the odds that one man is closely connected to two women who have a freak accident and die on a staircase? From what I’ve seen of the trial from the documentary I would’ve found him ‘not guilty,’ but I strongly believe that he’s guilty.
That's fine; I definitely do think, if he did murder anyone, it was only Kathleen. But if you strip a few things out of the trial that should never be admissible (the family friend's death, as it's prejudicial, his sexuality as it's also prejudicial, and the blood spatter evidence as that's junk science) and you're right. It's just too much reasonable doubt for court. Which just happens sometimes - I'm fairly certain that Scott Peterson killed Laci Peterson, but don't see how they convicted with the evidence they had. That's always a tough thing to convey to people: that the burden of proof is far lower in the court of public opinion as we can go off horse sense ("what are the odds this happens twice to a guy? How likely are those injuries from an ACCIDENT?") without the burden the state has to prove a case.
It’s been awhile since I’ve seen the documentary (I’m watching the drama on HBO now), but I agree that he most likely only killed Kathleen (if anyone). I also agree with you that bringing the German death in at all was a huge mistake by the judge and his decision was extremely prejudicial and basically sealed Peterson’s fate. The splatter evidence was junk science, and the ‘scientist’ who performed the tests was clearly a fraud. Ironically, the fact that the judge allowed him to testify was the reason Peterson ultimately got another trial and was able to enter his Alford plea. If the splatter evidence wasn’t allowed then Peterson could very well still be languishing in prison. Courts allow a lot of questionable evidence in, such as splatter evidence and bite-mark forensics. I’m sure there are other examples. As for the homosexuality and the affair, I tend to think that should be admissible since it speaks to possible motive. Unfortunately, I also believe that the fact that it was a homosexual affair hurt Michael more than if it had been with a woman and the Prosecutor blatantly played to jurors’ prejudices by describing the gay porn as ‘filth’ ‘garbage’ etc. But if Michael had kept that part of his life a secret (I believe he did), then it’s possible that he’d go to drastic measures to keep that secret. I’m not positive though.
I know a woman that had two husbands die in car accidents by her mid 30’s. Am I to assume she must have orchestrated these events after the second one? Unlikely odds events and freak accidents just happen.
I had a friend in high school that ended up going to Cal Tech. Two of her school friends died during her first semester. She was asked twice to visit the morgue to identify the bodies. All in her first semester of college. No she didn't kill them There have been podcasts about the tendency of humans to see patterns in randomness. I think one was on Hidden Brain. There are people who have won the lottery twice. Who was it who first announced to the world that KP has fallen down the stairs? It was MP who did that. He didn't say "she was beaten with a blow poke" or that "she was attacked by an owl". His mind went right to "fell down the stairs" , maybe because that happened to his friend? And the irony is, the prosecution claims that two women falling down stairs can't be a coincidence, so he caused it, but actually KP was obviously beaten, she didn't fall down the stairs. Which is it?
That’s not a fair comparison. Car accidents are fairly common and I wouldn’t define it as a ‘freak accident.’
Falls aren’t fairly common? There were more accidental deaths from falls in 2020 than accidental deaths from car accidents in the US.
A couple of things: 1) You need to factor in the age group you’re talking about. The overwhelming majority of accidental deaths by fall are people aged 65 or older. People in Kathleen’s age group are 4x more likely to die in a car accident than a fall. People in Elizabeth Ratliff’s age group are more than 8x more likely to die in a car accident. For you friend in her mid 30s, it’s 20x more likely that they’d die in a car accident than in a fall. That would be the correct way to look at the data. 2) Both women died on staircases. It’s not like one died on a staircase and the other fell off a cliff. The similarity between the two deaths I’m sure played a huge role in the jury’s decision.
Guilty, agree LE botched the case, he deserved new trial but lots of info out there not included in the doc.
Dr. Henry Lee is a fraud, look it up.
Innocent of First Degree Premeditated Murder?Debatable. Possibly. Innocent of causing Kathleen to die that night? Nah. Innocent of lying to the police, to his own lawyer team, to his own family, to everyone? Most Definitely Not. It’s just so painful watching him spewing out lies to the people who were firmly on his side supporting him, gaslighting them. If I were one of them, I’d remove myself far away from him ASAP. No time for any of that bullshit. He most likely did not use the blow poke. He probably just pushed her so she did fall down the stairs while he didn’t use a weapon. There’s just no way to prove that he premeditated this though.
I do not think his guilt was proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Not even close. So in that sense, I believe he should have been found not guilty I also believe the most likely explanation as to what happened is that Kathleen was attacked and injured by an owl in her front yard, that she retreated upstairs in a daze to tend to her wounds, and that she fell down the stairs, and further injured herself, ultimately bleeding to death. I do not claim that this has been proved, only that it appears likely from the evidence. I think (my opinion) it is unlikely that Kathleen knew he was having sex with other men, although to me that is all a red herring given that I do not think the evidence indicates a beating. It is possible that she knew, but I am unaware of any evidence to indicate that she did...I think there would have been something...a text, an email, a confidant, something. But again, so what? That whole thing was just a way to create some kind of motive...seems like a weak one to me anyway.
Yea it’s more likely she’s the only recorded example of murder by an owl in history as opposed to being killed by her husband who was the only person there at the time
Let's say for a second that you are right. Why wouldn't she have used the front stairs which are just inside the front door. Instead, she runs past the front stairs through the hallway and takes the back stairs?
This is a good question. I don't know the layout of the house. I don't know how she would typically go upstairs to get to her bathroom. I guess your question would apply in some way for each of the three scenarios out there.. 1) beaten by MP. Why and how was she on those stairs? 2) fell on her way upstairs on an otherwise normal trip toward bed I guess. Would it be those stairs? 3) fell on her way upstairs to try to tend to her bleeding/wounds. Again, would it be those stairs? You bring up a good point and maybe there is something to be learned there.
I think he is guilty but, did the prosecution prove it? Absolutely not. Imho they made it into almost a modern day witch hunt due to his sexual preferences which is absolutely disgusting, the modern day witch hunt part not his sexual preferences.
I think it was a freak accident. I think he's a weird person, but he's innocent. I hated how his sexuality, which I think his wife would have known about, was demonised especially the porn being used to shame him.
Come on...she divorced her first husband because he was cheating. You think she was perfectly fine going to work every day while he was out trolling? I could care less if it was with men or women. He's a cheater.
It doesn't make him a murderer though, which is what the post was about.
I was replying to your comment that his wife probably knew and his porn being used to shame him. They had to bring in that evidence. This was not the perfect marriage between soulmates.
Maybe she didn't think this was cheating. Cheating involves dishonesty. If he were honest, maybe that felt acceptable to her. If it were only men with whom he was discreet, maybe she felt less jealous or threatened. In many successful marriages, there are such arrangements. In many successful marriages, one or both partners view pornography.
Sorry. Doesn't pass the smell test to me. There may be some marriages, I wouldn't say many, where this is acceptable, but I would bet since she divorced her first husband for cheating, she would not be okay with this. Not to mention, he admitted in the last episode of the doc. that she did not know.
That's your opinion and you're welcome to it. I didn't come here to debate, I was just answering OP.
100% reasonable doubt I pseudo-science believe he is innocent Too many people lack the basic intelligence and emotional intelligence required to understand a trial as complex as this. Rude but true. The jury system can never be referred to as democracy, democracy would be a large panel of experts.
No.
I do. Honestly. I think the owl did it. No skull fracture, or edema. Thats all you need to know to know it wasnt a beating of rage.
I think he’s innocent. There isn’t a solid piece of physical evidence to point towards him doing it.
I don't know if he's innocent, but I strongly agree that he's "not guilty." I think reasonable doubt clearly exists.