HBO's The Staircase - David Rudolf Interview

[LennG]

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.

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?

[DaveBrown74]

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?

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.

[LennG]

We will just agree to disagree.

[DaveBrown74]

We 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?

[LennG]

 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?