As some of you may know, I run a small Youtube channel that interviews criminal justice professionals to discuss issues in the system.
Yesterday, I interviewed David Rudolf, who was the lead defence lawyer in the Michael Peterson case which shot to fame in the Netflix documentary, The Staircase. The documentary has recently been dramatised by HBO and stars Colin Firth.
When watching the HBO show, there are a number of factual inaccuracies which David and I discuss. Please note - if you're not familiar with case, this interview will contain spoilers.
You can view the interview here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yokrgJBPHF8
Great thread idea.
I am not watching the interview yet as I have only just started The Staircase. Actually, what I am doing, is first watching the Netflix docu-series, and then I will watch the HBO show. This approach was recommended to me by a friend, and so that is my plan.
I have to say, I'm only in episode four of the Netflix series, so this is subject to change, but already this guy looks guilty as hell.
I am looking forward to watching your interview. Do you think I can watch it after the Netflix docu-series and before the HBO show, or should I watch both first? Getting through both will probably take me another two weeks or more. With the Rangers now in the ECF, my evenings won't be as free as I thought they might be...
I
Sounds interesting and I'm always trying to find something to satisfy my need for a good show. I will give it a try and do as suggested, watch the shows first and then the interview afterwards. Thanks for posting
We do not have HBO, does it make sense to partake in this?
Quote from: LennG on May 31, 2022, 12:36:21 PM
We do not have HBO, does it make sense to partake in this?
If you
I banged out another episode of the Netflix doc. Into the trial now. Good stuff.
Even with a binge session this weekend it's going to take me another two weeks probably to get through both the documentary and the HBO show.
I'll be honest - right here right now (through 5 episodes), every bit of judgment I have is telling me this guy is guilty as sin. Obviously I won't rush to a conclusion there yet, but it sure looks that way to me now.
Quote from: DaveBrown74 on June 01, 2022, 08:27:53 AM
I banged out another episode of the Netflix doc. Into the trial now. Good stuff.
Even with a binge session this weekend it's going to take me another two weeks probably to get through both the documentary and the HBO show.
I'll be honest - right here right now (through 5 episodes), every bit of judgment I have is telling me this guy is guilty as sin. Obviously I won't rush to a conclusion there yet, but it sure looks that way to me now.
Looking forward to discussing it in when you
Quote from: DaveBrown74 on June 07, 2022, 02:53:59 PM
So I'm now done with the Netflix portion of this. Watched all 10 episodes of the documentary. I thought it was well done, though I would say it easily could have been half the length. I felt much of it was a bit drawn out and at times repetitive/circular (though still good overall).
I will be starting the HBO series soon, though probably not tonight given the Rangers are playing. I'm excited to watch this, as both Firth and Collette are top notch actors.
Agree on the actors. Firth, in particular, nails his role really well.
What did you think of the outcome/process or do you want to wait until you
Quote from: EDjohnst1981 on June 08, 2022, 02:13:47 PM
Agree on the actors. Firth, in particular, nails his role really well.
What did you think of the outcome/process or do you want to wait until you
Quote from: DaveBrown74 on June 08, 2022, 06:26:37 PMQuote from: EDjohnst1981 on June 08, 2022, 02:13:47 PMAgree on the actors. Firth, in particular, nails his role really well.
What did you think of the outcome/process or do you want to wait until you
I have lots of thoughts. Some you might agree with some you might not. But I've never been so fascinated by a case in my life.
David was kind enough to comp me two tickets to an event he was speaking at in London. Even now, I'm still learning more about the case.
This is me and legend himself
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20220612/ac9df4f7cbcbf1e94d63ffae9ac940b2.jpg)
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
That's fantastic! I hope you managed to have a dialogue with him or at least get some questions that you had answered.
I know I said I expected to be done with the show by now but I'm only on episode five. I should be done sometime this week.
We just started watching the Netflix account. Only 2 episodes in, but we hope to have it finished by the time we get home.
One question, why was this entire documentary done? Is something like this done all the time and just this case was hat interesting that they showed it? It seems as if they were there from day one and filmed it all, w=my question is why?
Quote from: LennG on June 13, 2022, 08:55:36 PMWe just started watching the Netflix account. Only 2 episodes in, but we hope to have it finished by the time we get home.
One question, why was this entire documentary done? Is something like this done all the time and just this case was hat interesting that they showed it? It seems as if they were there from day one and filmed it all, w=my question is why?
I got the sense that the filmmakers proposed the idea of the long term documentary to Rudolf early on, and he discussed it with Peterson and collectively they decided that it might actually help him, as he gets a chance to tell "his side of the story." I think they saw it as a potential strategic advantage.
I'm now done with the HBO show (as well as the Netflix documentary). Please stop reading here if you haven't watched both shows and you don't want anything spoiled.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Excellent on the whole. I did think both of them could have been tightened up and possibly reduced to a lesser number of episodes. The HBO show had a lot of gratuitous scenes I thought. All the scenes with the French film directors could have been consolidated, as could the scenes with the kids bickering with each other. The latter in particular got tedious after a while, especially in the last few episodes.
Excellent overall though, no doubt. Firth is an outstanding actor.
As I first started watching the Netflix doc, I thought this guy was clearly guilty. The case seemed straightforward enough, and there simply wasn't a credible alternative story to him killing her. The scene looked way too grisly for it to have just been a fall.
As the show goes on though it becomes more ambiguous. The lack of a skull fracture is problematic for the theory that this guy was pounding her head with a blowpoke or other blunt instrument, although I appreciate that that doesn't fully rule that theory out.
Clearly once the blood spatter specialist was proven to be a liar, that made for a highly problematic situation for the prosecution, as did the corrupt relationship of the DAs office with the SBI. Those developments made it hard if not possible to keep him locked up.
Still, I am not sure about this. He may well have been guilty. The problems above raise reasonable doubt, but they don't automatically mean he is innocent. I think it's a tough call (and hence a very interesting case).
We are now 6 episodes in and as was said, the courtroom scenes add a lot to it.
We have a couple of questions though and if they are explained before the series ends, then just tell me that.
#1--Peterson was married to Patti (If I screw the names up, so be it, but you know who I am talking about) when then neighbor was found dead. He takes their daughters in. How long after that before he divorced Patti?
AND, our biggest question, why did he get all the kids and Patti get no one? His two natural kids and the two new girls, all went with him--why?
How long after he divorced Patti did he marry the second wife?
I'm sure some of this was already said, but I just do not remember and it is easier to ask here than go back and try and find it. As of now, not one word was mentioned about why none of the kids stayed with the mother, I just find that strange.
Again, if this comesout later, then excuse my questions, but this has bothered me right from the get-go.
Quote from: LennG on June 15, 2022, 08:05:50 PMWe are now 6 episodes in and as was said, the courtroom scenes add a lot to it.
We have a couple of questions though and if they are explained before the series ends, then just tell me that.
#1--Peterson was married to Patti (If I screw the names up, so be it, but you know who I am talking about) when then neighbor was found dead. He takes their daughters in. How long after that before he divorced Patti?
AND, our biggest question, why did he get all the kids and Patti get no one? His two natural kids and the two new girls, all went with him--why?
How long after he divorced Patti did he marry the second wife?
I'm sure some of this was already said, but I just do not remember and it is easier to ask here than go back and try and find it. As of now, not one word was mentioned about why none of the kids stayed with the mother, I just find that strange.
Again, if this comesout later, then excuse my questions, but this has bothered me right from the get-go.
I don't recall the show going into these subjects in any depth, and if it did I missed it. If it was explained once but briefly it's possible I missed it, but I don't recall there ever being a lengthy explanation of any of this. Admittedly I watched some of these episodes pretty late at night and very possibly could have missed a detail or two.
EdJohnston is clearly better versed on this case than I am, so maybe he can chime in when he sees this.
I don't know if anyone else has watched this series, but we just finished it last night and I have several things I have to say on this.
From the very get-go, I did not like Peterson. I can't specifically say why, maybe because he was rich and was able to hire the great lawyer, maybe because of that silly pipe he smoked, maybe because he was just so unlikeable. So, with that, I had him guilty from the get-go. As the series went on, I thought his two daughters were equally unlikable. Maybe it was the smugness, or their constant giggling and laughing even when the Father's life was on the line.
So let me backtrack a bit. When I saw the autopsy of his wife's head, IMVHO there was no way that could happen by just falling down the stairs and the way they tried to project it, just a couple of stairs. I was never able to get past that as to murder or accident. It was always murder for me. I would have liked the defense to try to find an intruder, but they never did. When they brought out the bisexual thing, there was a motive. Peterson tried, even to the very end to portray that his wife accepted this, sorry, JUST NO WAY a wife would accept this and still have the perfect happy marriage. Then the murder in Germany, where they exhumed the body and found she was murdered, and who was with her last, Peterson. That put the nail in the coffin for me. I had no doubt he killed both women.
I cheered when the jury found him guilty and was very upset when they let him out.
So here are a couple of questions as I am no lawyer, why was he let out on bail awaiting a new trial. On paper, he was a convicted murderer. OK, things came out that cast a shadow on his conviction, so why was he allowed to be out on bail while awaiting a new trial. He was still a convicted murderer.
My second thought, all the way thru this show--once they ruled the woman in Germany was murdered, why wasn't Peterson questioned about it, even tried for that murder? There is no statute of limitations on murder and he could have been extradited to Germany. I thought for sure he would have been questioned about it as he was the last to see her.
And finally, this entire documentary was so one-sided and Peterson was able, time and time again, to just face these cameras and tell everyone how innocent he was and how he loved everyone. If this was a so-called documentary, why didn't they even talk to the prosecution, the DA etc? I was so sick of him lying to the camera, proclaiming his innocence. The entire thing was made basically for him to act the innocent guy.
Again, I felt he was lying from the get-go.
And, when he was pleading the Alford, it was the first time it was even mentioned that his wife was strangled also. That never came up or out anytime before. My theory, and it is only the way I see it, his wife found out about his affairs with these guys and she wanted out. Maybe in a fit of rage, he pushed her down the stairs thinking it would kill her. When she finally fell, she wasn't dead, so he hit her head a few times against the steps, so as to cause all those wounds, but never break the skull. That would account for the blood on his shorts and the footprint. That 'weapon' they claimed was used was never used. He did it himself.
All those wounds on the head, just no way they happen from a fall.
I do not have HBO so I cannot watch the other show you mentioned. I did enjoy this series, as we never wanted to look up what happened, and just go with the flow for every episode. I really feel for the wife's sister. They kind of blew her off as a kook, but what she had to say, really hit home for me. This docu-whatever was so one-sided and really made to portray Peterson as a guy who was wrongfully convicted and innocent.
Just another thought, when his family learned of his bisexual relationships, then about the other death in Germany, even if Peterson was their Father, and they believed him, there had to be some doubt, in the back regions of their mind, that maybe he did do this, but because this docu-whatever was so one-sided they never wanted you to see that. Everyone was the bad guy and Peterson and his lawyer were the heros'. Bull****
I thought he looked cut-and-dry guilty in the first half of the series but as the story wore on it became more nebulous for me. I no longer feel totally confident about that. No skull fracture still bothers me, there was never any obvious motive, and I clearly had a big problem with that blood spatter expert as well as the internal politics between the DA's office and the SBI. I'm now right on the fence as to whether he actually killed her, but I think there was enough reasonable doubt to acquit.
Dave
I admit that the guy for the prosecution really made a mess, but he was just trying to bolster a case that should have been cut and dried anyway. Even with that phony evidence, Peterson had to be guilty.
You say there was no motive, the bisexual dealing was the motive. Peterson claims his wife knew all about it and accepted it--Bullsh*t. Ask your wife, if she found out if you were having an extramarital relationship with another man, and if she would say, OK, do what you want, and we will still have that great marriage? I looked at my wife and asked her, she said I would be living in the garage until I could find a place of my own to move out to. He lied thru his teeth about this idyllic marriage. I'm sorry, that was the motive, she found out about his extramarital affairs, with GUYS, and she wanted him out. She never accepted this and he wouldn't accept their ideal marriage now going to be over. So he killed her, basically thinking he got away with it in Germany, why not here?
Lenn,
That may indeed be a motive, but there is no real proof of it, and that is more of a theory than anything certain or solid. Just having gay porn on one's computer doesn't make a person a murderer. And we really don't know what his wife knew or didn't know.
To be clear, I am not saying he didn't do it. I think he might have. I just went from thinking it was 100% open and shut to being less certain. I thought the owl theory was pretty interesting, and the fact that she had owl feathers on her makes that argument somewhat compelling.
Bottom line, the defense did not have to prove he is innocent to win. The prosecution needed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that he was guilty. Until they do that, he is innocent. When you have a totally corrupt blood guy who made stuff up and lied like this Deaver guy did, and when the whole relationship between SBI and the DA's office in Durham was as shady as it was, I would say that qualifies as reasonable doubt. It doesn't mean he didn't kill her, but it does mean that the prosecution didn't do a good enough job proving their case. That's the bottom line here.
I've calmed down a lot since I posted my original theories. I still think Peterson, without batting an eyelash, is guilty, but, as you say, we all might see it in different ways.
I think the blood guy just did what he did to bolster the case, which should have been cut and dried already. Why he did it, we all have no clue.
And Peterson was having affairs with guys, not just some porn on his computer. They trotted out that dude who was hooking up with him. I can understand the wife not being upset about, as you say, some porn on the computer, but when he admitted he was having affairs with other guys, that makes it a big deal. For sure, we don't know what went on in their bedroom, but as I said before, ask any wife if she would accept their husband fooling around, with guys yet, and not be angry, hurt, outraged, well she would have to be a saint.
I was hoping others would have watched this and joined in on the discussion.
Always great to hear your views.
Sorry, I've missed some of the questions here.
The reason for the documentary was the fact the filmmakers wanted to embed themselves in a case that gave a flavour of the US justice system. They wanted something to see something from start to finish.
In the beginning, I thought MP was guilty but as I worked through the documentary, I was no longer convinced. He didn't receive a fair trial - the science was basically junk and as ever, juries put a great deal of reliance on the expert witness. I was pleased when this was remedied.
In terms of his sexuality, I doubt she knew as Lenn suggests, but there's a chance she's okay with it. But again, I don't think that's too likely.
The more I think about the Owl Theory, the more I think it's plausible. It's crazy, right? I'm relatively well educated in Law (3 degrees) but I keep coming back to this preposterous idea that an owl was involved. I tracked down the creator of the theory and interviewed him last night. He walks through it in some detail here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C9yxzO3FpsE
Rudolf doesn't think Michael did it. I've asked him both formally at events and personally over dinner. He is convinced of his innocence. I have to admit, I agree with him. The last interview I did (linked in an earlier post) he talks about the judge making mistakes about admitting the sexuality and Germany stuff. I think that's interesting.
I think if the Owl Theory was put in front of a jury, it would create reasonable doubt about the method of death because the blowpoke idea doesn't stack up.
Great stuff Ed, as usual, and thanks for sharing that video. I will be watching it later for sure.
The owl theory definitely "sounds crazy", but when it is really presented it does seem like enough to raise reasonable doubt. The fact that she had owl feathers/fibers on her person is huge IMO. Unless you think Peterson carefully put them there somehow, which seems far-fetched to me, then why were they there if she wasn't attacked? Again, it's enough to raise reasonable doubt, which is all they needed to do.
I agree that the blowpoke theory doesn't add up.
I also think the statement that Peterson's motive was that his wife found out about his gay life and flipped out, so he killed her, is highly speculative and there is no real evidence of that. It is a viable theory, but it is not fact and hence does not really contribute to proof beyond reasonable doubt.
Bottom line I agree this guy was sent to jail after not receiving a fair trial. And while he may have murdered his wife (I really don't know), there was enough reasonable doubt there for an acquittal in my opinion.
Quote from: DaveBrown74 on June 30, 2022, 10:12:01 AMGreat stuff Ed, as usual, and thanks for sharing that video. I will be watching it later for sure.
The owl theory definitely "sounds crazy", but when it is really presented it does seem like enough to raise reasonable doubt. The fact that she had owl feathers/fibers on her person is huge IMO. Unless you think Peterson carefully put them there somehow, which seems far-fetched to me, then why were they there if she wasn't attacked? Again, it's enough to raise reasonable doubt, which is all they needed to do.
I agree that the blowpoke theory doesn't add up.
I also think the statement that Peterson's motive was that his wife found out about his gay life and flipped out, so he killed her, is highly speculative and there is no real evidence of that. It is a viable theory, but it is not fact and hence does not really contribute to proof beyond reasonable doubt.
Bottom line I agree this guy was sent to jail after not receiving a fair trial. And while he may have murdered his wife (I really don't know), there was enough reasonable doubt there for an acquittal in my opinion.
That's exactly how I see it, Dave.
With no disrespect Ed, I just don't have an hour right now to watch that video, so maybe you could do a quick summation for me. If not, I understand.
Seems I stand alone in still thinking this guy is guilty. If I were on that jury, I would stand firm on that.
Ed
I would like to know why you think the judge in the trial was wrong for allowing the evidence about the bisexual affairs AND the case in Germany. Wouldn't the bisexual thing be considered a motive if the wife didn't know and then found out and wanted a divorce? I had also asked why wasn't MP at least questioned about the murder in Germany once they rules it a homicide? I would think the German authorities would want to try and settle that case and since MP would have been a person of interest?
Quote from: LennG on June 30, 2022, 12:00:34 PMWith no disrespect Ed, I just don't have an hour right now to watch that video, so maybe you could do a quick summation for me. If not, I understand.
Seems I stand alone in still thinking this guy is guilty. If I were on that jury, I would stand firm on that.
Ed
I would like to know why you think the judge in the trial was wrong for allowing the evidence about the bisexual affairs AND the case in Germany. Wouldn't the bisexual thing be considered a motive if the wife didn't know and then found out and wanted a divorce? I had also asked why wasn't MP at least questioned about the murder in Germany once they rules it a homicide? I would think the German authorities would want to try and settle that case and since MP would have been a person of interest?
Lenn,
Just to be clear, I am not saying he definitely didn't do it. I simply think there is enough reasonable doubt for an acquittal. I don't think I would be comfortable convicting this guy with the evidence presented. As I know you are well aware, you can't convict someone in a court of law just because you think they did it. Their needs to be proof beyond a reasonable doubt. I personally don't believe that was ever accomplished here. In fact I think his initial trial was totally unfair, and some of the stuff that happened was outrageous.
Quote from: LennG on June 30, 2022, 12:00:34 PMWith no disrespect Ed, I just don't have an hour right now to watch that video, so maybe you could do a quick summation for me. If not, I understand.
Seems I stand alone in still thinking this guy is guilty. If I were on that jury, I would stand firm on that.
Ed
I would like to know why you think the judge in the trial was wrong for allowing the evidence about the bisexual affairs AND the case in Germany. Wouldn't the bisexual thing be considered a motive if the wife didn't know and then found out and wanted a divorce? I had also asked why wasn't MP at least questioned about the murder in Germany once they rules it a homicide? I would think the German authorities would want to try and settle that case and since MP would have been a person of interest?
EDIT - I edited my original post and it took 20 mins to write. For some reason it didn't post. I will have to re-write it later. sorry.
Quote from: DaveBrown74 on June 30, 2022, 12:17:43 PMLenn,
Just to be clear, I am not saying he definitely didn't do it. I simply think there is enough reasonable doubt for an acquittal. I don't think I would be comfortable convicting this guy with the evidence presented. As I know you are well aware, you can't convict someone in a court of law just because you think they did it. Their needs to be proof beyond a reasonable doubt. I personally don't believe that was ever accomplished here. In fact I think his initial trial was totally unfair, and some of the stuff that happened was outrageous.
Dave
As I have said a few times, I simply cannot get past all those bruises/cuts/whatever you want to call them on her head. To me, that would be so impossible from just a fall downstairs. And one of the defense's theories was she only fell down a couple of stairs, tried to get up, and hit her head again. So how does that account for all those gashes on her head and all the blood splatter all over the walls?
Again, just my theory is either she fell by something he did, and when she wasn't dead from the fall he bashed her head onto the steps, which would account for the blood splatter and the gashes and the blood inside his shorts. Since no one was there except MP the real truth only he knows. But there is enough circumstantial evidence for me to find him guilty.
Doesn't the events from German, even make you think he did that also or is just a huge coincidence?
Quote from: LennG on June 30, 2022, 03:37:55 PMDave
As I have said a few times, I simply cannot get past all those bruises/cuts/whatever you want to call them on her head. To me, that would be so impossible from just a fall downstairs. And one of the defense's theories was she only fell down a couple of stairs, tried to get up, and hit her head again. So how does that account for all those gashes on her head and all the blood splatter all over the walls?
Again, just my theory is either she fell by something he did, and when she wasn't dead from the fall he bashed her head onto the steps, which would account for the blood splatter and the gashes and the blood inside his shorts. Since no one was there except MP the real truth only he knows. But there is enough circumstantial evidence for me to find him guilty.
Doesn't the events from German, even make you think he did that also or is just a huge coincidence?
I really find it curious that there were owl microfibers at the crime scene and on her sweater that night. The scalp wounds are also consistent with owl attack wounds. Strikingly so, in fact. I think there is enough credibility with this theory that reasonable doubt can be legitimately posed. I would love to hear from anyone who feels completely certain this guy is guilty to explain why there were owl feather remnants all over the place at the scene. You don't just get those on your person having a glass of wine after dinner by your pool.
I don't think the Germany thing is any sort of conclusive proof. What does it prove? If this guy really were some ruthless, calculating, diabolical killer, why would he do it the exact some way? There are millions of ways to kill a person. Why pick the one that is going to look the most suspicious?
As to the blood spatter, I'm no expert on that. I do know that the "expert" the prosecution's case was hinging upon was a completely sketchy liar who was not nearly as qualified in this field as he claimed he was and who had all kinds of inconsistencies in numerous cases. Intuitively speaking, if she already had open wounds on her head and was disoriented when she got to he stairs and had a violent fall, after which she moved around frenetically (as an injured person might) and maybe tripped again, I could see it getting messy there. Again, it all falls under "reasonable doubt" for me, which is of course not to say he definitely didn't do it.
We will just agree to disagree.
Quote from: LennG on June 30, 2022, 07:11:32 PMWe will just agree to disagree.
Sure, all good obviously, but just so I am clear, are you disagreeing with the claim that he did not receive a fair trial?
No, I am agreeing to disagree that you see him as possibly innocent or not enough evidence to convict and I see it the other way. To me he is guilty and if this documentary was really neutral and given the prosecution as much time as it gave Peterson to basically cry into the camera at will, I think many people's opinions of him would be different. He used this docu drama as a platform so he can turn to the camera anytime he wanted and shed a few tears telling everyone how he was innocent.
Sorry I never bought into that for a moment. If they wanted to really film how American justice works, why not share equal time with the DA and the prosecution?
And a question to Ed, why was Peterson let out once they decided to give him a new trial? At that time, he WAS still a convicted murderer, why would he be allowed to get out of jail and stay at home awaiting a new trial?