Netflix - The Staircase...innocent or guilty?

[CoRhona]

YABU - it was an unfortunate fall

YANBU - guilty as sin

(If you've not watched it but plan to, read up more about it afterwards...I was )

Guilty, but I also agree that the evidence presented (and that I have read up on) definitely wouldn’t be enough for me to find him guilty if I were on the jury

2 dead women in his life, both from falls down the stairs and people still think it was an owl?
He must be the unluckiest guy alive

YANBU. I don't know if it has been proven in law, but I am certain he did it.

Well, weirdly, my Ex-MIL's parents both died in the same way but over a decade apart. Her father choked to death on a fish bone. Her mother choked on some meat. I have never suspected my MIL of killing them. It's a fairly common way for the elderly to die. Falls down stairs are also fairly common. I don't think ER actually died from falling down the stairs She had a brain hemorrhage which killed her. The stairs were incidental. For me, personally, I don't find it enough of a coincidence. I just don't think there is enough evidence either way in this case.

I don’t think they did die in the same way though. It’s far from clear the cause of death was the same or even similar.

@tobee

That was meant to have *@BobbingPuffins*

No worries but I was actually the same when I searched for it

Over the years of filming he started a relationship with one of the producers, conflict of interest for her as she was meant to be impartial

It wasn't even over the years - they were together by the time of his trial.

Although, given the relationship was ended by him shortly after everything was sorted out you have to wonder how genuine it was on his side.

Nice and handy to have the editor on your side. Both in terms of the editing and also the longevity of having the cameras follow him

I thought Elizabeth death had been recorded as a stroke but the autopsy carried out after her body was exhumed showed no evidence. It wasn't admitted as evidence through technicalities.

He had plenty of motives to kill her as their relationship was a bit dodgy. She could have threatened to reveal some things to his wife.

Adding to this that he tried very hard to keep this quiet...

100% guilty.
The "coincidence" of two of his previous partners/wives both dead - both caused by a staircase fall- when he was also around.

The utter implausibility of the murder scene/amount of blood/wounds

His murky double life being exposed giving him clear motive.

Was so obvious it was laughable to me but was consumed by frustration at his kids all being such sheep/nodding dogs and completely sucking is story up- not fighting for the truth about their mum.

I would have 100% found him guilty had I been on a jury.

Spybot find your post very interesting, especially as you live so close to him.

Elizabeth wasn't his partner. She was his wife's widowed friend on the military base.

Elizabeth wasn't his partner. She was his wife's widowed friend on the military base
And was spending a lot of time with her after her husband passed away, without his wife around....to help look after her kids. Yeah right!

The first woman apparently didn't die of a staircase fall, but of a brain haemorrhage while on the stairs.

@hammeringinmyhead

Elizabeth wasn't his partner. She was his wife's widowed friend on the military base.

She was obviously close to him - it was him who took custody of her children after she died.

It was also him who was helping her out her kids to bed, while his wife was at home putting their kids to bed, the night before she was found dead.

And this thread is why I have no faith in the jury system. Yikes.

@SinkGirl

And this thread is why I have no faith in the jury system. Yikes.

In what way?

Because people say things like I would have 100% found him guilty had I been on a jury when the prosecution couldn’t even put together a plausible explanation for how she was killed, and had shocking forensic analysis.

If people think the prosecution proved that he was guilty, that’s alarming.

@SinkGirl

Because people say things like I would have 100% found him guilty had I been on a jury when the prosecution couldn’t even put together a plausible explanation for how she was killed, and had shocking forensic analysis.

If people think the prosecution proved that he was guilty, that’s alarming.

I don’t agree. The jury at the time - who heard weeks of evidence unlike any of us - found him guilty. Granted that was with the dodgy forensic officer, but he ultimately gave an Alford plea, in which he accepted that even though he didn’t do it, there was sufficient evidence for the jury to conclude beyond reasonable doubt that he did.

Who knows where the truth lies but I certainly don’t think the fact people would have convicted him (I said upthread I wouldn’t have btw) is a reason to be alarmed or doubt the jury system.

I think it is slightly worrying that people have very categorical opinions either way. If it was as clear-cut as all that there wouldn’t be a documentary on it.

Yes... I was just saying that this:

100% guilty.
The "coincidence" of two of his previous partners/wives both dead - both caused by a staircase fall- when he was also around.

Is either incorrect or unproven. She was not his partner.

@Fluffybutter

2 dead women in his life, both from falls down the stairs and people still think it was an owl? He must be the unluckiest guy alive

Why do people think amount of blood = murder? If you bleed to death, there will be a lot of blood regardless of how you got hurt!

I still think there’s a chance he did it (and find the case very intriguing), but I wouldn’t have found him guilty based on the evidence.

Why do people think amount of blood = murder?

It’s relevant to the owl theory though. Given how much she was bleeding there isn’t an obvious innocent explanation for no blood between the door (she was attacked outside on this theory) and where she was found.

I thought the owl 🦉 theory was that the owl attack caused her to fall on the stairs?