Netflix Continues Your True-Crime Obsession with ‘The Staircase’ Trailer

It's glossed over in the final episode but the initial autopsy report also states thyroid cartilage damage which is often seen in strangulation. That and the observed clotting and drying of the blood leads me to believe that there was an altercation in the stairwell. In any case, guy is guilty, it's pretty obvious.

The most amazing thing in this whole case was that Duane Deaver, who fabricated, misstated or withheld evidence in 34 cases, sending innocent people to jail for decades, was fired and it was ruled that he was wrongfully dismissed and he got 3 years of back pay as a result.

PoppaBK said:

The most amazing thing in this whole case was that Duane Deaver, who fabricated, misstated or withheld evidence in 34 cases, sending innocent people to jail for decades, was fired and it was ruled that he was wrongfully dismissed and he got 3 years of back pay as a result.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

It really looked like the SBI fired Deaver when they found out he was totally incompetent, but because they didn't want doubt cast on all those cases they gave a false reason for firing him.

With that evidence no jury should have gotten to a guilty verdict beyond a reasonable doubt. I think most everyone can agree there. And then consider that important elements shouldn't have been admissible. Does that mean he's innocent? Not necessarily. I actually noticed that Rudolf in a solo interview avoided addressing that. But as a lawyer that's not what his principle concern is.

I think he's probably innocent but he is also proven to be an excellent liar and story teller.

If he killed her, there can't be a murder weapon, right? No skull fractures and no cast-off pattern that made sense, not to mention no murder weapon found (of course he could have disposed of it somehow). If he did do it, then he probably fought with her and pushed her down the stairs. In fact I wonder if the prosecution considered that but realized they couldn't prove it without supporting the idea that it could have been an accident.

The owl theory...this is the first I've heard of it and it's pretty funny to me. You don't need an owl to create those wounds. I once got hit with an elbow to my eyebrow and it created a Y opening (there's a name for it but I can't remember what it's called) that required stitches. The 'talon' is pretty much the same thing but much worse. That's what can happen with skin that's close to bone. Seems much more plausible than an isolated owl vs lady battle isolated entirely to the bottom of the staircase with her husband never seeing an owl go into or leave the house.

And the documentary may not have started biased but it seems like they got more access to the defense (initially they were interviewing the prosecution, too) and that helped steer the narrative and probably their own beliefs. That's fine but it bothers me a bit that certain elements were revealed in Staircase 2 by necessity that were apparently omitted from the first doc. eg, evidence of strangulation? Cast-off blood in Mike's pants (shown years later to be less than it appeared)?

Kathleen's sister Candace comes across as a total bitch in episode 13. That statement in court is just pure hatred bursting out of her. I think in all likelihood it's grief manifesting itself as hate and vitriol, but it's still not a good look. And telling Rudolf to get a new suit because the one he was wearing made him look poor is just pathetic and petty.

The owls are not what they seem....

An alternative 3-part documentary featuring Candace et al. Having watched very little of it so far I'd guess it was an effort by Candace to get another narrative onto YouTube

Not to say it's any less legit. Just a guess

Wether you think he did it or not (I don't) no sane person could sit on that jury as say there were no reasonable doubts. They were fucking tonnes. Hence they should have returned a not guilty verdict.

Yeah I'm inclined to believe he's innocent but I watched this series more as a look into the justice system and how hard it can be on defendants. If he was poorer/didn't have family with money he would have been royally fucked. Hell even after spending around $500k he still had to beg Ratliff at the end to represent him pro Bono because he was destitute

It was a fascinating look into a family and person going through the cogs and I would have enjoyed it just as much if I thought he was guilty. That's said I'm really not sure why everyone is so on this guy for being gee whiz like. We follow him for over 15 years and even with editing I don't see anything in all that footage to indicate that's not just the way he is. I've met plenty of people of his generation that act exactly the same way. Seemed totally in keeping with how his children saw him too

Just finished this.

What a ride, as usual anything I knew about this case through osmosis was completely wrong. I genuinely think he was innocent and that she fell.

Anyone else think Margaret is Michael's biological daughter?

Captjohnboyd said:

If he was poorer/didn't have family with money he would have been royally fucked. Hell even after spending around $500k he still had to beg Ratliff at the end to represent him pro Bono because he was destitute

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

Yeah, that's my big take away from this. It's impossible to say whether he was guilty or not based on ten hours of documentary that's clearly been shot from one side of the argument, and then edited by filmmakers who have not only brought in their own prejudices, but no doubt grown closer to the defense over fifteen years.

But the system for figuring this shit out is truly fucked. Hundreds of thousands of dollars spent to put up a good defense, only to be thwarted by the state spending just as much or more to bring in people who are willing to do pretty much anything to help the conviction along. It's just horseshit, and the average person has no chance.

And I know that in the end, humans have to make the decision. That's good and bad. Humans are terrible at looking at the cold hard facts, without bringing in the human element. Yes, Peterson is kind of a kooky guy, he has things in his past that he's kept secret, and there's that bizarre connection with the thing in Germany. None of that should affect the verdict, but it does, because it's impossible for a human being to ignore that sort of thing. Throw in supposed experts with supposedly hundreds of cases of experience in these sorts of things, throw in the fact that there was a whole lot of blood in those pictures, throw in the fact that Kathleen Peterson looked like the nicest lady in the world, and Michael Peterson was utterly fucked from word go.

David Rudolf brought up the fact that in Scotland the verdicts are Guilty and Not Proven. Now, Not Proven or Not Guilty are effectively the same thing, but the psychological difference between those two terms is enormous. The jury isn't there to figure out if the guy killed someone or not; they're there to figure out reasonable doubt. But you look at those pictures, and it's difficult to say Not Guilty. You want someone to be responsible. Were the other option Not Proven? Might have changed things.

I personally think he's innocent and that something completely bizarre killed the poor woman.

Its really annoying watching these types of shows because the whole prosecution side have literally no interest in finding out what happened. They want a conviction and that's it. They start with the assumption of guilt then find evidence they think proves it.

I turned this off after 3. Found it to be so boring, the pacing horrible. Intrigued about the owl theory, though.

Great watch.. not totally sure what to think about it after finishing it. Never heard of the Owl theory but if Owl feathers were in fact found at the scene and in her hair what on earth could be the reason for that other than some crazy situation where an Owl attacked her. That might explain the crazy situation and how it was unclear exactly how she died.

Really wish they had at least explained that more because its not like he would have planted owl feathers and then not pushed it as an excuse. Seems so crazy to me for that to not be a part of this hard to explain death. Beyond that it is crazy that he had 2 wives die the same way.. or at least in the same final situation at the bottom of stairs but who knows if that means or proves anything.

The blow poke thing as well.. If cops really did find it and ignored it WTF.....

Crazy ass story and of course it leans towards the defense as whoever filmed this had full access to one side.

The only thing that truly does go against him, is the injury to Kathleen Peterson's neck. I don't think that is ever explained.

I'm currently watching this. I've made it to the episode where the jury makes their decision.

The thing that was interesting to me was how competent the defense lawyer team seemed at first, but then how poorly they seemed during the actual trial. Like in the lead up to the trial, they were hiring focus groups to test how potential juries would like certain theories or not, and that whole witness acting coach who was teaching Michael how to look good to juries. I thought that was crazy, and didn't realize so much work went into expensive defense teams. But then during the actual trial, the defense lawyer seemed really ineffective. Like when he was trying to discredit the blow poke blood splatter by arguing about how much swinging would be necessary to kill someone with it. He just always seemed to have really weak rebuttals against the prosecution.

IMO, Michael murdered his wife. I've fallen down stairs before. That staircase was like a Kill Bill set. There's no way that was just from a fall.

Edit: Oh and that reminds me. Another thing I found odd was how the family continued to live in the house with the staircase still all bloody and everything. I guess they were waiting for the trial to end, but holy shit. Move into a relative's house or something until you can clean the staircase.

TechnicPuppet said:

I personally think he's innocent and that something completely bizarre killed the poor woman.

Its really annoying watching these types of shows because the whole prosecution side have literally no interest in finding out what happened. They want a conviction and that's it. They start with the assumption of guilt then find evidence they think proves it.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

That's the most interesting thing about the show. In the first or second episode their is a scene with the defense discussing their strategy and which 'story' they will go with. There is no consideration at all to the actual truth, just the story that it will be easiest to convince the jurors of. It's a pretty stark portrayal of how little the truth plays in court cases, similar to the two contradictory prosecutions in making a murderer.

PoppaBK said:

That's the most interesting thing about the show. In the first or second episode their is a scene with the defense discussing their strategy and which 'story' they will go with. There is no consideration at all to the actual truth, just the story that it will be easiest to convince the jurors of. It's a pretty stark portrayal of how little the truth plays in court cases, similar to the two contradictory prosecutions in making a murderer.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

Again, that's because its not the defences job to provide the answers as to what actually happened (although doing so can obviously be a good defence).
Its to make the prosecution meet the burden of proof required that what they claim happened has no reasonable doubt.

Innocent until proven guilty.

compo said:

IMO, Michael murdered his wife. I've fallen down stairs before. That staircase was like a Kill Bill set. There's no way that was just from a fall.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

What are some plausible ways that he could have killed her, though?

plagiarize said:

Why would he kill to get out of his second marriage? Doesn't make any sense.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

Money.

Zutroy said:

Anyone else think Margaret is Michael's biological daughter?

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

Is she the adopted daughter with wide eyes? I'm in the middle of binging this and the same thought occurred to me.

He was convicted of being bisexual in North Carolina. That's all there is to it.

Cat Party said:

He was convicted of being bisexual in North Carolina. That's all there is to it.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

That's what I was thinking. The prosecution played that up nasty. I found myself disgusted with the jury for clearly taking the bait.

holygeesus said:

The only thing that truly does go against him, is the injury to Kathleen Peterson's neck. I don't think that is ever explained.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

In the episode where Michael is released with a tether, the new prosecutor kept talking about blood on the ceiling (despite Dr. Henry Lee claiming in earlier episodes that there wasn't any up there).

If there's blood up there, he killed her. There's no way that gets up there from a fall.

Cat Party said:

He was convicted of being bisexual in North Carolina. That's all there is to it.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

I thought the same thing. When the prosecutor played that up in the closing, basically screaming about his homosexuality to the jury I knew he was toast.

If anyone wonders where Freda Black has been since the trial, as she wasn't included in the updates.
https://www.wral.com/former-durham-prosecutor-charged-with-dwi/14375377/

She ran for more public offices, unsuccessfully, than were listed there. Also, Mike Nifong who was mentioned in the article was also briefly in The Staircase, commenting on the autopsy photos in an early episode.

Here's a better article about where more of them have been: http://www.newsobserver.com/news/local/crime/article134614484.html

Finished this series a couple of days ago. Never knew of the story so i was fucking shocked he was found guilty. I was expecting a not guilty verdict but then some crazy shocking twist at the end. Sorry but a jury like that is despicable. Granted they didn't show the full trial, but literally all the state had was a god damn theory. 100% they felt that he maybe did it, so he's guilty. Scary shit.

My personal opinion is he didn't kill her. And if he did, it must have a been a freak accident. Therefore he served his time and should have NEVER been charged with murder. There's no motive. Friends and family said they were great. He's wealthy (i think life insurance was only 35k?) with no signs of mental illness. The fact they used his bisexuality as a motive was a big WTF and that dumbass judge even admitted he thought it was wrong yet let the man sit in prison for years.

The cuts on the head and the overall crime scene was a bit TOO much for a simple fall on the stairs. As crazy as that owl theory is, it sounds damn plausible to me. Also why wasn't the owl feathers and branches never even brought up? Defense dropped the ball on that one. When a crime scene looks that horrific you have to give the jury a more reasonable explanation then a simple slip.

I love this true crime stuff but I prefer it in the style of Mindhunter or Manhunt: Unabomber. Is there anything else like that out there?

Clicked into a thread about the trailer and I see unmarked spoilers :-\

May want a thread title update or something.

KillingJoke said:

My personal opinion is he didn't kill her. And if he did, it must have a been a freak accident. Therefore he served his time and should have NEVER been charged with murder. There's no motive. Friends and family said they were great. He's wealthy (i think life insurance was only 35k?) with no signs of mental illness. The fact they used his bisexuality as a motive was a big WTF and that dumbass judge even admitted he thought it was wrong yet let the man sit in prison for years.

The cuts on the head and the overall crime scene was a bit TOO much for a simple fall on the stairs. As crazy as that owl theory is, it sounds damn plausible to me. Also why wasn't the owl feathers and branches never even brought up? Defense dropped the ball on that one. When a crime scene looks that horrific you have to give the jury a more reasonable explanation then a simple slip.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

There *is* motive. He wasn't wealthy, the money was hers. He had tons of debt.

Don't get me wrong, I flip flop back and forth constantly between thinking him guilty and innocent. Even so, there is no way he should have been found guilty by any court, whether he did it or not.

Never had a doubt he was innocent. Great doc.

Ashhong said:

I love this true crime stuff but I prefer it in the style of Mindhunter or Manhunt: Unabomber. Is there anything else like that out there?

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

American Crime Story: Trial of OJ Simpson?

Dr Wily said:

American Crime Story: Trial of OJ Simpson?

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

Forgot about that. Watched it too :( will have to watch season 2 next

I'm through three episodes, as I live about 2.5 hours from here, this case is fascinating.

how did the victim get that kind of head lacerations anyway

Just finished ep 2 and not sure what to make of it. Having seen the other more famous true crime stuff (Serial, How to make a Murderer, Evil Genius, The Jinx) the presentation and style of this seems really "off".

For anyone who watched the original stuff, don't bother with the "three new episodes"

Super boring and no interesting revelations.

holygeesus said:

There *is* motive. He wasn't wealthy, the money was hers. He had tons of debt.

Don't get me wrong, I flip flop back and forth constantly between thinking him guilty and innocent. Even so, there is no way he should have been found guilty by any court, whether he did it or not.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

Hmm i must have missed that. I was under the impression he was the wealthy one due to being a writer. I also realized i got my stories swapped. The first lady who passed away had a small life insurance, Kathleen had a 1.5mil one. Either way, they were both living a wealthy life and his friend even called a day before about a potential movie deal. So killing his wife for 1.5mil (which is probably not even that much considering their lifestyle), i don't know. I just can't buy it for some reason. Even in the e-mails they tried to use against him stated he was in a happy marriage and how awesome she was.

The crime scene & injuries is the only thing that throws me off. Doesn't look like a simple slip down the stairs and doesn't look like a physical assault with a weapon either.

what are the best true crime/unsolved Netflix series? ideally where each episode is about one case... I started to listen to a podcast about these sort of things, but would love a show as well.

I might make a specific thread on this.

Ultima_5 said:

what are the best true crime/unsolved Netflix series?

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

its making a murderer. Its incredibly well edited in such a way that you feel a particular aspect is covered in depth in each episode, and then it drops a bombshell at the end making you want to watch the next episode to find out what the hell that was about.

it only really covers one crime though

Dr Wily said:

its making a murderer. Its incredibly well edited in such a way that you feel a particular aspect is covered in depth in each episode, and then it drops a bombshell at the end making you want to watch the next episode to find out what the hell that was about.

it only really covers one crime though

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

thank you! I'll add it to my watch list.

I was hoping for something a bit more episodic though as I only really watch tv shows sporadically so I enjoy when stuff is contained.

Ultima_5 said:

what are the best true crime/unsolved Netflix series? ideally where each episode is about one case... I started to listen to a podcast about these sort of things, but would love a show as well.

I might make a specific thread on this.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

Making a Murderer, The Keepers, and Evil Genius .

Is this worth watching if I've already seen Trial and Error?

I never really want to come down on an opinion of guilty or not when watching these shows because a documentary like this can rarely be balanced and public opinion generally means fuck all in cases like this. Still, if the documentary is in any way accurate, the prosecution had a fucking terrible case and him being convicted by the jury is crazy. Especially if one of the biggest reasons for the jury swinging to guilty was due to Deaver's testimony.

Watched it, thought it was interesting but ended up being way too long, I could've done with like 6-8 episodes max. Sped watched the last few episodes.

Hard to get a true sense of the trial and everything that occurred. If I had to 'guess' I feel he did do it but how the fuck the jury came to a guilty verdict is disgraceful.

Also that woman on the prosecution with the grating accent was trying to make him out as a demon for having a relationship and anal sex with a man. Yes he wasn't faithful to his wife that is relevant but if it was male or female is not particularly relevant in terms of trying to make it seem more likely he'd murder...

Watched this with the GF last week. We both suspect that he didn't do it, but he's covering for whoever did (one of the kids maybe).