I am a few episodes in. It is very similar to Making a Murderer. It is a show the came out in 2004 about a case in Durham, NC in 2001. It doesn't have the framing aspect but it is pretty interesting thus far.
Documentary on Netflix about the trial of Michael Peterson over the death of his wife. They began filming almost immediately so you go through the entire process. It’s absolutely fascinating. Spoiler: the end :holyfuck: at the judge essentially admitting he fucked up during the first trial.
Had a somewhat long discussion about this in the organized crime thread. Loved it and David Rudolf is a kick ass defense attorney
Wife and I have finished 3 episodes. Really cant get a read on the guy but I love his defense attorney.
Definitely watched this 2-3 years ago. Can't remember where I downloaded it but really enjoyed it. Glad to see it hit Netflix.
Saw David Rudolf say on Twitter that Netflix is gong to add more episodes later on. Possibly another season
I did not go to law school and do not practice law but if I were a juror I would say Michael killed 2 women! He likes men? Hmmm well he will love jail!
Now that more people have watched it I've got 2 questions... Knowing what you know now after watching the Doc, would you vote guilty/not guilty at a re-trial? Regardless of a trial/burden, do you think he killed her?
I’m at the point of not-guilty on a re-trial, but he did actually do it. I don’t see them reaching the burden for me. Some random stuff that has been said (not all meant to be admissible evidence): He was beneficiary for 1.5 mil payout. That became an issue before trial and Peterson signed it over to her daughter. Daughter asked for pension. Victim’s pension actually paid for the defense lol https://www.wral.com/peterson-daugh...urance-payout-with-biological-father/1090679/ The shoe-print on the back of her pants doesn’t make sense to his story if that’s how he found her: http://edition.cnn.com/2003/LAW/07/25/ctv.novelist.trial/index.html Injury to front of neck that is seen with strangulation. Blood was probably sitting there for 1 hour per all initial reports by ems. Sister-in-law saw Mike beat a dog until it was bleeding per Written in Blood, by Diane Fanning Falling down stairs….blood is common, but bruises or broken bones always follow and certainly not 5-7 lacerations all on top of the head as if the stairs beat her. 911 call doesn’t seem natural. Cops said he moved on quickly at the scene and got on his computer. Trying to cheat on his wife is not a good sign. She divorced her last husband for cheating. Defense said they had a perfect marriage in opening, cheating became relevant, gay or not. The Germany incident shows knowledge/M.O./planning of this type of “accident.” Areas of crime scene cleaned up. Not near her, but wiped blood toward kitchen. Blood on back door. MP says on the 911 call that she is breathing. As her brain shows with the red nuerons, she had to have been dead for at LEAST 45 minutes prior, most likely 90+ minutes. Luminol testing revealed bloody footprints, no shoes, had been cleaned up that went from Kathleens body, to the laundry room, to the refrigerator/sink area in the kitchen, and then to the wineglass cabinet - and then they stop. Medic reportedly took note of Mike saying he'd just gone out to turn off the pool lights when he returned to find Kathleen like this, per Fanning book, Written in Blood. In contrast, Mike's settled-upon story involved lounging by the pool after KP had gone inside – 55 degrees out. The photo of her: https://i.imgur.com/SgjzDQG.jpg He acted shocked when house became a crime scene not an accident scene. His own sister believes he did it: https://web.archive.org/web/20060205042751/http://www.justicemag.com/daily/item/1186.html Did everyone seem to agree that if she did fall it was just the first 2 steps based off the blood? So, 7 cuts on head from 2 steps? Worth listening: https://player.fm/series/beyond-reasonable-doubt-1453199 Worth watching: as well:
1) Not guilty 2) Shady shit went down. The dried blood, the somewhat cleaned crime scene, I think someone said when cops got there he was on his computer checking(deleting) emails. Now, I can’t connect the injuries to the scene to a definite plausible scenario. Did she slip a few stairs? Was it an owl attack? Neither seem likely but maybe. With what I know, if I had to come up with a theory I’d say. Either the wounds were self inflicted (she finds the gay prostitution on the computer and loses it, she’s having issues at work as well, she had handfuls of her own hair in her hands, etc) or just crazy bad luck (falling perfectly, owl attack, etc). And I think he found her, realized she knew about the cheating, realized the source of income for him and all the kids will be gone if she survives, he’s also drunk, and it his state of mind decides, if she’s gone our dept issues will be solved and I can finally live my life as a bisexual(or gay) man. That’s why she bleeds out, why her bloods dried, crime scene tampered with, but no obvious signs of murder/beating her to death. The other scenario that seems likely. She goes inside, goes to check her email(did someone say her laptop was broken????), his email pops up with a male prostitution inquirie, and she loses her shit. He hears her comes inside, they’re both drunk, she also has an ambien in her system, a minor “scuffle” happens, he pushes her away meaning no harm but she slips/trips, cracks her head on the corner of the stairs and chaos ensues. Maybe they argue some more and she gets up and slips or he pushes her again, another crack. I’m sure he realizes what’s happening and tries to stop the bleeding(the paper towels, the shoe print, etc). Eventually realizes she’s dying, calls 911, realizes he has blood on his shoes and it looks like a fight, cleans up a bit and calls 911 again, realizes crap I need to get the gay stuff off my computer and then paramedics/police show up. One thing I’d like to add. When I was in college we all got back from bars and we’re going into my buddies house, there were 3 steps leading into his back door. One of the girls who was very drunk slipped on the 2nd step with her heels, went to grab the guy in front of her, missed, and fell straight back into the sidewalk(I know, cement vs wood). But she split her scalp a good 2 or 3 inches wide. No brain/skull issues but I saw her skull and that was pretty cool. The next morning that sidewalk looked like someone dressed a deer. Doesn’t mean anything with this case but thought I’d share.
which part? How do you think she died, the 2 steps = 7 lacerations theory? Among other things, also hard for me to get past the blood clean up. Why are you cleaning up anything before the police get there, you know they’ll need to look around. "I was watching "The Keepers" last night and was shocked when they mentioned The Staircase Killer. A highly respected forensic pathologist, Werner Spitz, was commenting on the case, and he had his assistant provide his credentials. She mentioned that he worked on John F. Kennedy, the trials for OJ Simpson and Jon Benet Ramsey, as well as "The Staircase Killer". The showed a short clip of MP and Spitz chuckled, saying he was hired by the defense but they didn't like what he had to say so they didn't include his exam or conclusions." good shit:
Love it. 1) not guilty, state did a terrible job 2) oh he killed those ladies The all access stuff like watching the defense go through discovery and all the mock trial prep was fascinating.
I noticed him as well. I remembered him from the JBR special on CBS, but couldn’t remember which other show. Didn’t realize was The Keepers. Thanks. Just went back and rewatched and had to laugh.
I’d definitely say not guilty. But with only having watched The Staircase I think he’s not guilty. All the facts you guys are bringing up now make me hesitant.
Deaver or whatever was an absolute moron and that video of them celebrating after making their tests that “proved” their theories was disgusting. I never thought he was guilty but never though he was innocent, like many said his Defense attorney Rudolf was outstanding. Even with the fabricated results i couldn’t believe the got convicted in the original trial from watching the documentary.
Nothing too new, but good read: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ircase-helped-overturn-murder-conviction.html
Nearly everyone in this thread thinks he's not guilty by legal standards. That's why this case is interesting though, many think he may have done it.
I only watched the Netflix doc. The doc showed crime scene photos taken by the police where there was blood and other police photos where it was gone. Is that the crime scene clean up you guys keep referring too? 1. Not guilty 2. No idea. I doubt it was a simple accident. I also don’t trust any of the crime scene evidence because of the obvious fuckery. I also realize that the documentary biased me.
Just finished. 1. As presented by the documentary, not even remotely close to a complete absence of reasonable doubt. The state wasn't anywhere near the ballpark of presenting an exhaustive case. Motive alone was threadbare. And throw in the absolute clusterfuck of a blow poke hypothesis. I mean, a couple investigators found the blow poke a long time ago, took it outside, took pictures of it, returned it to the boiler room, but never once admitted to any of that during the trial? All the while, everyone else believes the blow poke is lost? C'mon now. On top of all of that, Deaver and others were beyond shady. Even before the big reveal about Deaver, you could tell that the guy was not to be trusted. 2. I don't know what to think about Peterson's guilt. Like the jury before they really started focusing on evidence that was later blown up, I'm pretty much 50-50. Given the clumps of her own hair found in her hands, the presence of owl feathers, and the odd lacerations, I'm inclined to side with the owl "theory." On the other hand, I question the perspective of the documentary given that the editor fell in love with Michael.
So we have the so-called Owl Theory. Look at the autopsy drawing and take note of the trident-like lacerations circled in red. Then look at the talons of a barred owl, which is one of the common species of owls found in the Durham area. Now imagine what lacerations from an owl's two feet might look like if the owl attempts to grab/attack the back of a person's head. Specifically imagine the four talons stretched out and then drawn together as they cut through the scalp.
By the way, Freda Black -- you know, the assistant district attorney who played up the "homos are disgusting" angle to the jury -- was arrested in 2015 for driving drunk. Her employer at the time was listed as Durham Cleaners, a dry cleaning service. Yeah, I'd say that time has not been too kind to Freda since the Peterson trial. What a shame.
Although my question #1 answer is Not Guilty, should be pointed out when talking motive (which isn't required) that the State provided the jury with the life insurance policy that MP stood to benefit +1.4 million dollars from and also him being upset that she found out he was cheating and/or gay. His computer played a role. Also fwiw, Juror's cite the evidence of the crime scene (which they went to see), the shoe print on the back of her pants, the cleaning up of some blood, and his prior knowledge of an accidental staircase death as the reasons they voted guilty. Not the blow poke. Not Deaver. That was basically abandoned in closings.
I've always been taken in by the owl theory, it's just very low odds for an owl to attack an animal so big. The coincidence of the death in Germany, I have to lean towards Peterson being the likely killer in both deaths rather than another viewpoint. Still have to prove it though, which is why I would vote not guilty. Terrible job of prosecuting.
The thing about the death in Germany is that the medical examiner in Germany performed an immediate spinal tap. The fluid was murky, and it was concluded that Ratliff suffered from a brain hemorrhage. Moreover, she had been experiencing and complaining about corresponding symptoms for weeks leading up to her death. I don't care what the investigators in North Carolina deduced after exhuming Ratliff's body. Rudolf asked that a neutral examiner in Texas perform the autopsy. That request was rejected. Instead, Radisch found what she obviously had already set out to find. Whether it was Radisch, Deaver, Baker, or whoever else, that whole team in North Carolina was not to be trusted.
It's wholly prejudicial. I've always thought he should be not guilty bc of the evidence available. My instincts tell me he is likely guilty. Two women end up dead at the bottom of a flight of stairs. Never should one be guilty based on feelings though.
On the other hand, if you had already killed one woman who ended up at the bottom of the stairs, would you really kill another woman by having her end up at the bottom of the stairs?
In this hypothetical scenario, yes it's possible he got away with it the first time. Again it doesn't and shouldn't matter in our legal system. I only think he's likely guilty by percentage, and that percentage is not 100. It's the burden of the state to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt, and they never have imo.
I always end up hating the prosecutors. Hated Ken Kratz in making a murderer. I hated the soft-spoken male version of Nancy Grace and especially hated Freda in this. Candace was a real bitch in this too.
It shows he had knowledge prior to that day. Very specific knowledge. They don't have to prove he did it or even prove she was intentionally killed in Germany. I can't speak for whatever State that was, but that evidence gets in more often than not in Florida.