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 )

The trouble with these true crime documentaries is, I agree, that the victim is forgotten or sidelined, and the accused is portrayed as some kind of hero that we should be rooting for.

The Steven Avery Making of a Murderer was fascinating but, when you really looked at the evidence, there was no way he was innocent. The documentary left out or glossed over key pieces of evidence, said little about the victim, and made her family out to be at best a thorn in the side of the defence or at worst suspicious themselves.

@IrmaFayLear

The trouble with these true crime documentaries is, I agree, that the victim is forgotten or sidelined, and the accused is portrayed as some kind of hero that we should be rooting for.

The Steven Avery Making of a Murderer was fascinating but, when you really looked at the evidence, there was no way he was innocent. The documentary left out or glossed over key pieces of evidence, said little about the victim, and made her family out to be at best a thorn in the side of the defence or at worst suspicious themselves.

Totally agree especially about Steve Avery. And I was totally sucked in as well after watching it, it was only after reading more on line afterwards and taking a bit of a step back that i realised that actually he is guilty as sin and i felt like such an idiot to allow that Doc to manipulate me.

One of the worst parts actually was at the start when they really had you thinking that woman who he ran off the road and pulled a gun on was the bad guy and you felt sorry for Steve

I remember thinking all the way through that it seemed so unfair on Kathleen that her life and death was made such a spectacle all in the name of "entertainment". It just felt wrong - especially when they showed her body in the crime scene or autopsy type photos. I thought she died a horrible death and even in death she's not at rest.

@LooneyLovefood I agree. She got no justice and nor did her family (sisters and daughter), or an explanation.

100% guilty

He was very weird right from the start
Weird life
Weird mannerisms
Guilty body language
So jolly throughout
Screamed fake / masking to me.

Completely masking and blocking true inner character which obviously came out in a rage on that fateful night.

@IrmaFayLear

The trouble with these true crime documentaries is, I agree, that the victim is forgotten or sidelined, and the accused is portrayed as some kind of hero that we should be rooting for.

The Steven Avery Making of a Murderer was fascinating but, when you really looked at the evidence, there was no way he was innocent. The documentary left out or glossed over key pieces of evidence, said little about the victim, and made her family out to be at best a thorn in the side of the defence or at worst suspicious themselves.

This is interesting! I have my doubts about Steve but I believed Brendan. I haven't really researched it beyond the documentary.

Brendan was portrayed sympathetically, but it doesn’t alter the fact that he confessed to someone before the police interviewed him . This again was skated over in the documentary, which preferred to focus on his interview. The defence said he had read a crime novel featuring a similar crime which “inspired” his “confession” - but then again they emphasised his learning difficulties which, if they were as severe as they claimed, would have precluded his being able to read the novel they said he had read.

I admit I have looked into this just a bit!!

I could understand heat of the moment thing. But, his mental state seemed quite calm for an accidental killing. It’s very hard to lie consistently for years in such detail
It came out that he did have anger issues. His personality fit with someone who is naturally calm but totally lose it when I see threat.
.
The issue with the fall theory is not the injury itself. The skin will burst when hitting a hard object. It's the fact that she had such cuts. They do believe that she tried to stand up as there was evidence of blood under her feet, and slipped again, but still hard to explain 7 cuts.

The owl theory doesn't make sense either as there indeed would have been evidence of an attack with feathers and blood whether inside or out.

What frustrates me with the documentary and broadcast is that so.luttle has been shared about timescales. We know they had sex, watch a film and went outside. We know she also went to his computer (where she could have found out about his gay meet ups), but what was claimed to have happened then. They talk for some time outside and she then went up and he stayed for another 2 hours, alone in the middle of the night? There's also mentioned of her putting up decorations in the garden, when was this supposed to have happened?

One thing that caractheriseichael is the way he deviates his responses to questions. He starts by answering directly but half way starts talking jibberish and goes on to talking about things unrelated to the question. Typical behaviour of intelligent liats.

I listed to this podcast years ago and always thought he must be guilty. I do also like the owl theory but just seems so far fetched

The book Written in Blood by Diane Fanning about this case and Michael Peterson is fascinating. It delves quite deeply into his early life and covers a lot that either isn't in the documentary series or is glossed over.

It's only 1.99 on kindle

I absolutely think he's guilty. The owl stuff is a nonsense distraction.

To add - I'm less convinced he murdered the first woman in Germany (although I wouldn't rule it out) but I do think the circumstances of her death at the very least provided the blue print of an 'accidental' death scenario.

What came across strongly in the book that was perhaps less apparent from the documentary MP has a long history of being a con man and a grifter with a very dubious moral compass. He is incredibly opportunistic even without throwing murder into the mix.

I found myself sympathising with him and his tears even though I firmly believe he's guilty, and wondering if he was acting.

Maybe he'll bring out a book to be published after he's dead with what really happened

@OvaHere

To add - I'm less convinced he murdered the first woman in Germany (although I wouldn't rule it out) but I do think the circumstances of her death at the very least provided the blue print of an 'accidental' death scenario.

What came across strongly in the book that was perhaps less apparent from the documentary MP has a long history of being a con man and a grifter with a very dubious moral compass. He is incredibly opportunistic even without throwing murder into the mix.

Given the documentary was edited by a woman he was in a relationship it's hardly surprising his ugly traits were glossed over a lot.

So I listened to the podcast and the Owl theory which I thought was ludicrous...but is it really. What got me thinking was her hair yanked from her head in both hands, I think around 15 strands or so each so not insignificant. I also read on owls and they definitely do attacked people and are very present in the area.

Then I imagined the scenario. They have sex, they have dinner, they watch a film. She then takes her valium (common for sleeping). He gets the wine out, gets her a glass, he mentions relaxing by the pool as weather is so mild. They go, she doesn't drink much if her wine as she has taken the valium. She starts feeling sleepy and says she's going to bed. She takes her glass, dump the wine in the sink and then hears some noise out if the front of the house. She goes out to investigate, sees one of her Xmas ornament down, goes to pick it up, the owl attacks.

She tries to get it off her head, hence the hair, and injuries on her elbows. She walks in, one hand in her head to work out extent of injury, opens door with other hand but then close with the other. She wants to check on her cut so goes up for flight if steps, runs up, slips, loses consciousness. She regains it, tries to get up and call Mike, she slips again, knocks her head again and is this time unconscious for longer. Hence the blood under her feet.

The issue that I've got with his guilt, is that although I do believe he had a motive of she found out about his affair and they had an argument is that the injuries don't really tally with being struck on the head (no brushing, swelling, fracture) nor falling down (7 injuries).

As I said, during my altercation with an owl, it was carnage in terms of feathers and bird poo. A bird would not swoop down, attack and fly away leaving only one neat feather.

Yes. The owl theory is ludicrous.

A bird would not swoop down, attack and fly away leaving only one neat feather.

Of course they do, how do you think they hunt?

@IrmaFayLear, that's what I used to think but reading more about it, they do exactly that.

I find the strands of hair in her hands and even the one feather which does indeed look like the ones of the feet of these owls very strange and I haven't seen anywhere any explanation. Why would a woman attacked or falling down pull that much hair
from her head with both hands?

Evidence showed Kathleen was strangled. Peterson admitted to it in his Alford Plee.

I have seen the documentary and honestly think he is guilty as sin.

I had never heard of the owl theory but it’s clearly bollocks. An owl attack would leave feathers everywhere if it was trapped inside it would poo.

It is interesting that the producer was in a relationship with him. I was gripped by the case but now I don’t think the film should have been made. I think Kathleen deserved better than that.

His kids were obviously brainwashed by him and probably scared.

People will do anything to give violent and abusive men the benefit of the doubt.

Why would an owl attack leave feathers everywhere? If they shed fathers every time they killed a rabbit they wouldn’t get very far. And no-one I claiming it happened inside. I’m far from being convinced myself, but if you’re going to claim it’s ludicrous at least make sure you have the right theory.

@notafanoftheman, I agree.

Did he admit to strangling her? I don't recall that at all. Her sister did say the autopsy showed a neck bone fracture. How could this has been dismissed from the evidence, surely it was crucial, even if you could argue her fall could have been on her neck.

Another discrepancy is motive that she's seen the evidence of his communication with the escot on his computer whilst checking a work message but Michael claims the lab tests showed it hadn't been access after 4pm that day.

Too many conflicting evidence in this case that shoukdnt be.

If an owl attacks you, I can imagine you wouldn't just take it. It's quite dissimilar from a bird of prey swooping down and picking off a rabbit. A human is quite a bit bigger than a rabbit and has two good arms to fend off the bird. You'd flail around and hit the owl, thereby dislodging feathers and causing the owl to poo.

As I said, I disturbed an owl in my bedroom and my attempts to get it to leave were met with the owl flapping around, leaving masses of feathers and droppings.

I think the crucial difference is inside / outside. I'm not wedded to the owl theory at all, but there are documented cases of owls (not sure if the same species) attacking people, and the attackees don't mention feathers and poo everywhere.

doesn't sound like lots of feathers and poo happened here: