The Stair Case (Sundance Channel)

[hawkamer]

I haven't seen this mini-series yet, but the write-up on Slate makes it sound very interesting:

The film, which runs over six hours in its entirety, is an account of the Peterson murder trial—no, not that Peterson. In December 2001, Michael Peterson, a novelist and newspaper columnist, called 911 in hysterics to report that his wife Kathleen, a successful executive at Nortel, had fallen down the stairs of their Durham, N.C., home. But when the cops arrived at the scene, the extensive blood-spatter patterns on the staircase, along with evidence recovered from Michael Peterson's computer, seemed to contradict his story. Within a week, Peterson had been charged with first-degree murder and had retained the services of a charismatic and expensive defense attorney named David Rudolf.


http://www.slate.com/id/2116156/


It's currently running on the Sundance channel. The first 2 episodes ran Monday night, but Sundance is replaying them often. If you're looking for this in the guide date, it's "The Stair Case" not "Staircase."

[Eight47]

Very interesting documentary.

I am wondering how the defense can explain the [spoiler]amount of blood at the scene of the accident.[/spolier].

`Staircase' catches the ups and downs of real murder case

By Maureen Ryan
Tribune staff reporter
Published April 4, 2005

The most compelling murder mystery of the year is not on one of the three "CSIs," the four versions of "Law & Order" or any of their innumerable clones.

The one flaw of the gripping true-crime tale "The Staircase" (8 p.m. Monday) is that it's only available on the upstart Sundance Channel; one wishes that it was as widely available as "CSI." It's that good.

And it proves that truth is often stranger -- and even more compelling -- than fiction.

The eight-installment documentary, which airs over four Mondays, unfolds at first like a suspenseful beach read: A wealthy novelist's wife, who happens to be a successful telecom executive, is found nearly dead at the bottom of the stairs in the family's showcase home in a leafy enclave of Durham, N.C.

Having sustained several nasty gashes to the head, she expires before help arrives.

The husband, Michael Peterson, says his wife, Kathleen, took a tumble on the kitchen stairs as he sipped a glass of wine near the family pool; the police take a different view of things and charge him with murder soon after Kathleen's December 2001 death.

In the supple hands of director Jean-Xavier de Lestrade, this John Grisham-esque tale soon recalls the award-winning documentary "Capturing the Friedmans." De Lestrade arrived in North Carolina soon after Michael Peterson was charged, and his cameras were on the scene for every legal strategy session and every revelation. He interviewed all the parties in the case and he also captured the small and large ways in which the lives of the blended family Kathleen Peterson left behind began to unravel and fray.

And speaking of revelations, there are plenty. It almost goes without saying that Michael Peterson wasn't entirely what he seemed; after his wife's death, the things that came to light about him made his chances at trial look grim indeed. But in this carefully paced film, the director, who won an Oscar for the documentary "Murder on a Sunday Morning," seems to be asking, "Are any of us entirely what we seem? And who can truly see into the heart -- or the motives -- of another?"

The circumstances of Kathleen's death do seem rather odd, but then again, the lip of an assistant district attorney actually curls when she discusses the details of Michael's personal life (to say more about that topic would ruin one of the film's most intriguing revelations). As Michael's defense is carefully (and expensively) assembled, one wonders if Durham officials had a grudge against the outspoken, emotional author, given his unusual private life and his journalistic crusades against incompetence in local government.

"The Staircase" doesn't need flashy editing or forced melodrama to keep the audience's interest (though it should be noted that there are some brief shots of grisly crime-scene photos; this documentary is definitely for mature viewers). And the strained looks on the faces of the Peterson family keep reminding the viewer that all of this really happened. But the documentary keeps adding layers of complexity to the tale until one is entirely hooked by its ambiguities and twists and turns -- and soon, as with a great novel, one can't wait to see what happens next.

[Ntombi]

I caught the first episode of this yesterday and was hooked. I immediately set up a SP. I saw an edited version of this on another channel a few months ago, because the style and editing and footage was exactly the same, but it was only an hour or two.

Anyway, this is really good, even though I know the particulars, because I halfway paid attention to this trial when it was on CourtTV. I like the style of the filmmaker.

[hawkamer]

Anyway, this is really good, even though I know the particulars, because I halfway paid attention to this trial when it was on CourtTV. I like the style of the filmmaker.

Yes, this is definitely not like Dateline NBC! So far, I like the pacing and moodiness. I know virtually nothing about the case, but so far, neither side has me convinced.

[skanter]

Compelling case -- beautifully handled and edited -- I think (not sure) the guy's innocent...

[JohnJr]

I'm watching it. Lots of things I want to google when it is over.

I watch a bunch of true crime stuff, but this one is good as it is "live." Kind of like "The First 48."

-John

[skanter]

I'm watching it. Lots of things I want to google when it is over.

I watch a bunch of true crime stuff, but this one is good as it is "live." Kind of like "The First 48."

-John

At this point, do you think he's guilty or innocent?

[JohnJr]

I've watched through about day 32 or so of the trial...

I guess I think he is guilty. The majority of the evidence seems to me to indicate that he is guilty. I'm not sure how she would get those splits on her head from falling on stairs, or at least I would think that they would find the 3-4 places where they COULD say she split her head once on this step, once on that step, once on this other step. I would think that there would be left over "matter" (and splatter?) on each of those steps.

I don't like that his previous wife (I think that's who it was) also died from a fall on a staircase?! That's just too weird.

I can see the guy getting her nicely plied with alcohol and pills, and then taking his sweet time knocking her with the fireplace poker. I can even see him wiping it clean after each whack, which could explain the absence of blood splatter evidence to indicate that sort of an attack.

Although... it does still bug me that there isn't that blood splatter evidence to support that sort of attack. Is the guy that "good" that he knows to wipe off the poker between whacks? Also, if she was a mess... drugged and drunk, and he attacked her, you would think his first hit should pretty much take her down, and if so, how did she end up with blood under her shoes? That makes me wonder about whether she did get up once or twice, in a stooper, just to fall and accerbate her injuries.

He could have sat there and pushed her over everytime she did get up. Pulling her feet out from under her multiple times. Until finally, she didn't get up again.

Did I mention I find the guy to be a little too "smooth." He's got some very expensive "experts" (that Asian guy I believe to be one of the TOP TOP forensic experts).

In the end, I guess I still don't know. I do not like hearing of somebody else dying in virtually the same manner, however.
-John

[bruab]

I recorded about 6 episodes and I can't make heads or tails of them. They're 50 minutes long and they show 2 back to back, but half of the epsiodes seem to start in the middle. I also seem to have episode one but not two or three. I started late, so maybe it was just the re-broadcasts that had screwy DTV guide data? It first episode was very interesting though.

They seem to have a marathon scheduled for May 1, so maybe if I get them straight through I'll have it all.

[skanter]

I recorded about 6 episodes and I can't make heads or tails of them. They're 50 minutes long and they show 2 back to back, but half of the epsiodes seem to start in the middle. I also seem to have episode one but not two or three. I started late, so maybe it was just the re-broadcasts that had screwy DTV guide data? It first episode was very interesting though.

They seem to have a marathon scheduled for May 1, so maybe if I get them straight through I'll have it all.

I'm a bit confused as well. I think I saw six episodes (in order), but Tivo missed a few, I think, as I only see two eps left. Does anyone know how many eps in all?

John Jr. -- couldn't read your spoiler post as I was afraid of findinf out info
before watching...

[skanter]

Tonight Tivo is recording "The Verdict" and "Blowpoke". Are these the final two episodes, and is this the correct order to watch them, or is "Verdict" the last ep?

[JohnJr]

I looked (barely, scared of spoilers) and it looks like Blowpoke should be viewed first and Verdict second. Which makes sense.

-John

[hawkamer]

Yes, I believe those are the last two episodes, in that order.

Edit: I was referring to skanter's post. My guess is the "verdict" will come at the very end of the "Verdict" episode, then they will wrap everything up and get reactions from the various parties in the "Blowpoke" episode. This is pure speculation though, as I won't get near the guide data for fear of spoilers!

[JohnJr]

I re-read the site where I got the impression it was "Blowpoke Returns" first and "The Verdict" second, and I still believe that to be the case. Blowpoke Returns was described as the defense arguments (which in reflection, we haven't seen... just the prosecution arguments) and "The Verdict" was described as the verdict.

...

Monday April 25th at 9:00pm
Chapter 7: The Blowpoke Returns. The defense begins presenting its case, which relies heavily upon such experts as a biomechanical engineer and a prominent forensic scientist. But the outcome may finally come down to a stunning find by Michael Peterson’s oldest son.
Chapter 8: The Verdict. The long trial reaches its conclusion and Michael Peterson learns his fate – at least, for the immediate future.
-John

[hawkamer]

Well, if that's the case, it could be the filmmakers had some sort artsy-smartsy existential reason for showing the verdict and then going back to the defense's arguments. Or, someone at Sundance screwed up!

[JohnJr]

It looks like just the listing is screwed up. What my TiVo recorded at 9PM Eastern, labeled "The Verdict" is actually "Chapter 7: The Blowpoke Returns." The one labeled Blowpoke, is actually "Chapter 8: The Verdict."

So if you watch them in the order the TiVo recorded them, you should be OK.

-John

[skanter]

It looks like just the listing is screwed up. What my TiVo recorded at 9PM Eastern, labeled "The Verdict" is actually "Chapter 7: The Blowpoke Returns." The one labeled Blowpoke, is actually "Chapter 8: The Verdict."

So if you watch them in the order the TiVo recorded them, you should be OK.

-John

Jeez!

My problem is -- I think I missed eps 5 &6. I guess I could wait a few days when they rerun the whole thing, but I may just watch 7&8 tonight anyway.

I can't wait!

:o

Edit: Re "The Stair Case" -- isn't "Staircase" ONE word, not two??? Or did they mean "The Case of the Stair" "The Staircase Case"? Or "The Stairs Case?

:confused:

[JohnJr]

Do not read unless you have seen the conclusion.

". . . . . . Hail horrours, hail
Infernal world, and thou profoundest Hell
Receive thy new Possessor; One who brings
A mind not to be chang'd by Place or Time.
The mind is its own place, and in it self
Can make a Heav'n of Hell, a Hell of Heav'n
What matter where, if I be still the same,
And what should I be, all but less than he
Whom thunder hath made greater? Here at least
We shall be free; th' Almighty hath not built
Here for his envy, will not drive us hence:
Here we may reign secure, and in my choyce
To reign is worth ambition though in Hell:
Better to reign in Hell, than serve in Heav'n."

...John Milton, Paradise Lost (Book 1)
Great documentary.

-John

[JohnJr]

I recorded about 6 episodes and I can't make heads or tails of them. They're 50 minutes long and they show 2 back to back, but half of the epsiodes seem to start in the middle. I also seem to have episode one but not two or three. I started late, so maybe it was just the re-broadcasts that had screwy DTV guide data? It first episode was very interesting though.

They seem to have a marathon scheduled for May 1, so maybe if I get them straight through I'll have it all.
There are eight fifty minute segments titled chapter 1 to 8.

Chapter 1: Crime or Accident.
Chapter 2: Secrets and Lies.
Chapter 3: A Striking Coincidence.
Chapter 4: A Prosecution Trickery.
Chapter 5: A Weak Case.
Chapter 6: The Prosecution’s Revenge.
Chapter 7: The Blowpoke Returns.
Chapter 8: The Verdict.

All eight episodes will air on Sunday May 1st, beginning at 2:00pm.

-John

[JohnJr]

Anyway, this is really good, even though I know the particulars, because I halfway paid attention to this trial when it was on CourtTV. I like the style of the filmmaker.
Ntombi,

Does CourtTV still air complete trials like they used to with O.J. and that crazy middle-aged blonde woman (forget her name)? From your message I take it they do. I used to love those. Is there a place for me to get a rundown on what the current trial they are airing is, and at what time during the day it airs? Assuming there is one. If there isn't one, how do I find out when they are next going to show one? Do I just have to keep visiting their web-site, or is there a better way?

-John

[hawkamer]

Wow. That was riveting!

After the blow poke episode, I was firmly in the "reasonable doubt" camp. The verdict really shocked me.

[skanter]

Wow. That was riveting!

After the blow poke episode, I was firmly in the "reasonable doubt" camp. The verdict really shocked me.

It sure was!

I missed eps 5&6, but unless the prosecution presented some VERY DAMNING evidence, I can't see how the jury convicted Peterson. It was totally stunning -- and depressing. The prosecution's closing seemed to deal with Peterson't bisexuality more than evidence proving he committed the crime.
No reasonable doubt??? Hardly...

[hawkamer]

It sure was!

I missed eps 5&6, but unless the prosecution presented some VERY DAMNING evidence, I can't see how the jury convicted Peterson. It was totally stunning -- and depressing. The prosecution's closing seemed to deal with Peterson't bisexuality more than evidence proving he committed the crime.
No reasonable doubt??? Hardly...

Agreed.

There were TONS of reasonable doubt. Episode 5 adds some more reasonable doubt, although Episode 6 sort of evens the score. Also, some aspects of the trial that were left out that, in my opinion, damaged the prosecution even further.

The feeling I got was that they were out to get this guy. Whether it was the fact the he was bisexual, or if there was a combination of reasons, I'm not sure. Regardless, no revelation seem to shake anyone on the other side. When they found the blow poke, Catlin (Kathleen's daughter) went on Court TV to say "this doesn't change anything." What!? I was screaming at the TV at this point: THIS CHANGES EVERYTHING!!

[JohnJr]

I'll admit to being pretty shocked at the verdict too. The shots of his girls crying pretty much tore me up. Lightning strike, indeed.

I do think a part of OUR concern/surprise in the case is that we saw the entire case presented to us, in the documentary, from the defense side. I would have preferred to see this case "in court" to have the kind of perspective that would have allowed me to judge his guilt or innocence.

Some of my favorite moments include the lady prosecutor's face when they pulled out the blowpoke. That was a classic moment, IMHO. However, as it was presented in the documentary, I don't think the lead defense attorney did as good a job as he could in leading the jury/court up to that moment. I didn't hear any ooohs or ahhhs of shock, or really get any feeling at all of surprise, other than the shot of the lady prosecutor's face. I'm not sure how I could have done it better, I'm just sure that it could have been done better.

I need to google more about the second person in his life that was also found dead on a staircase. I didn't pay too much attention during that episode and still don't have that quite down in my mind. Something like that could explain what put the jury in the frame of mind to convict. It's just to weird a coincidence.

Old Dr. Henry Lee took a little hit in this case. Apparently the jury believed the State's explanation of the blood splatter over his.

I turned out liking Peterson a bit more than I had originally. Anyone that can spout off quotes from Milton's Paradise Lost in everyday conversation garners at least a little bit of my respect. :)

Oh, and as far as the bi-sexual stuff, I guess that could have had more of an impact on the jury than I had originally thought as well. But, if the prosecution was going to go there, couldn't the defense have brought up some sort of "crime of passion" type argument and gotten 2nd Degree, 3rd Degree or whatever options on the verdict slip? Here they had two choices -- guilty or not guilty, of capital murder.

I guess maybe the defense were going for all or nothing. They got it all.
-John

[7thton]

I, too, was quite shocked that the jury found him guilty. There was a huge amount of reasonable doubt...the blowpoke, the bloodsplatter patterns, the lack of brain bruising or broken fingers, lack of motivation (despite the whole male-hooker thing), lack of a murder weapon, lack of any evidence that Petersen and his wife had any problems or issues....

Regarding Henry Lee, I just knew that he would do poorly on the stand. He did not seem to be serious enough on the stand. He laughed and made jokes about Petersen's lawyer...made jokes about getting "blood" on Petersen's lawyer during his demo. He laughed his way through the cross examination regarding the book inscription. (Although it was a low blow on the prosecution's part).

I'm not sure that Petersen didn't do it, but I am sure that there is reasonable doubt that he did.



I'll admit to being pretty shocked at the verdict too. The shots of his girls crying pretty much tore me up. Lightning strike, indeed.

I do think a part of OUR concern/surprise in the case is that we saw the entire case presented to us, in the documentary, from the defense side. I would have preferred to see this case "in court" to have the kind of perspective that would have allowed me to judge his guilt or innocence.

Some of my favorite moments include the lady prosecutor's face when they pulled out the blowpoke. That was a classic moment, IMHO. However, as it was presented in the documentary, I don't think the lead defense attorney did as good a job as he could in leading the jury/court up to that moment. I didn't hear any ooohs or ahhhs of shock, or really get any feeling at all of surprise, other than the shot of the lady prosecutor's face. I'm not sure how I could have done it better, I'm just sure that it could have been done better.

I need to google more about the second person in his life that was also found dead on a staircase. I didn't pay too much attention during that episode and still don't have that quite down in my mind. Something like that could explain what put the jury in the frame of mind to convict. It's just to weird a coincidence.

Old Dr. Henry Lee took a little hit in this case. Apparently the jury believed the State's explanation of the blood splatter over his.

I turned out liking Peterson a bit more than I had originally. Anyone that can spout off quotes from Milton's Paradise Lost in everyday conversation garners at least a little bit of my respect. :)

Oh, and as far as the bi-sexual stuff, I guess that could have had more of an impact on the jury than I had originally thought as well. But, if the prosecution was going to go there, couldn't the defense have brought up some sort of "crime of passion" type argument and gotten 2nd Degree, 3rd Degree or whatever options on the verdict slip? Here they had two choices -- guilty or not guilty, of capital murder.

I guess maybe the defense were going for all or nothing. They got it all.
-John

[bruab]

I anxiously look forward to this weekend when I might get the whole series and will then be able to read this thread. :)

[Tracy]

As to Michael Peterson's relationship with the woman in Germany, I can explain:



When Michael and his first wife were living in Germany they were good friends with another couple. The other couple were the parents of Margaret and Martha, who were tiny at the time. The husband died in combat, I believe. A year or so later, the wife died. She was found at the bottom of the stairs in her home. At the time, it was determined that she died of natural causes--a brain aneurysm. This left Martha and Margaret orphans. Michael and his first wife adopted them.



This was all explained in an early episode that had post-its on a white board.

[latrobe7]

I stumbled upon this on Sundance and got a season pass. After watching all of it I was outraged. I truly thought that the prosecutors where scary and on a witch-hunt. How could anyone find this man guilty beyond a reasonable doubt? I immediately went to the Internet to find info about his appeal; surely there must be a groundswell of support for this man and his family. What I found changed my mind. Michael Peterson is where he belongs.

At first I was surprised by the visceral tone of the sites condemning Michael Peterson and the movie, but I soon found some facts impossible to ignore. I quote and paraphrase what troubled me the most below, and include links to the two most comprehensive sites I found. The sites are as slanted against Michael Peterson as the movie was for him. After thoroughly reviewing them as well as the movie, I believe Michael Peterson is guilty and aside from the two dead women; the people most deserving sympathy are the children, particularly Martha and Margaret Ratliff who've lost their parents twice.

--"(The film) crew followed the Peterson family for two years, finishing with over 650 hours of footage. Obviously, which 6 hours were kept -- and which 644 hours were cut -- wasn't decided by accident.

Considering the film's lack of spoken narration, it can't be pure coincidence that viewers almost uniformly come away from it feeling confused about what appears to be insufficient evidence of murder, and angry with what appears to be an outrageous miscarriage of justice"


--"Jurors in a post-verdict press conference told reporters they discounted the 1985 murder and testimony about Peterson's bisexuality."


--"Dr. Kenneth Snell saw Kathleen Peterson's body at the scene a few hours after police arrived. Although he indicated 'accident' on a preliminary report, Dr. Snell also decided an autopsy was necessary and advised police to begin looking for something like a crowbar or fireplace poker.

The next day, after viewing the autopsy and getting a close-up look at the victim's wounds at the morgue, Dr. Snell concluded Mrs. Peterson died 'from an assault -- more specifically a beating.' Snell cited extensive wounds to the body that included numerous bruises to Kathleen's face and the backs of her arms and hands." - I don't recall any mention of these wounds in the movie.


--"Two items of Agent Deaver's evidence DO point directly to the novelist: the blood spatter found up inside the leg of his shorts which suggests he was standing over Kathleen Peterson during an impact, and Michael's tennis shoe print stamped in blood on the back of his dead wife's sweatpants." Also not in movie...


--"During the autopsy, medical examiners discounted the possibility of an accidental fall, noting the victim had seven bruises matching seven lacerations on her head, and multiple bruises on her arms -- yet no bruising to her legs or buttocks.

Michael's attorney said Kathleen Peterson, 'after drinking some wine and some champagne and taking some Valium, tried to walk up a narrow, poorly lit stairway in flip-flops.'

Mr. Rudolf also contended 'she fell backward on a step at the lower portion of the stairwell and split her scalp open. She tried to get up, slipped on the bloody floor, hit her head again and died of blood loss.'" Medical records show Mrs. Peterson's system had only trace amounts of Valium and a blood alcohol level below the state's legal limit to drive.

The autopsy shows that along with bruised arms, wrists and hands; Kathleen Peterson had several scrapes and bruises covering her face and a fracture to the cartilage in her throat. Clearly, she didn't injure her face and throat from a fall backward on her head."


--The defenses own forensic experts concluded Mrs. Peterson's wounds and blood loss tell the story of a slow, painful death that took a lot longer than 10 minutes.

Defense witness, Dr. Jan Leestma's conservative estimate was that Mrs. Peterson had suffered severe blood loss at least 45 minutes before she stopped breathing.

Furthermore, the defendant's renowned forensic scientist, Henry Lee -- having explained that blood spatter hit the walls and landed on top of blood spatter that had already dried -- testified that the fatal event in Kathleen Peterson's stairwell took as long as 30 minutes.

What was Michael doing during all that time?


--"In none of the versions of Lestrade's successful film does he document Michael's financial failures. One comes away with the impression that Michael is exceedingly wealthy. The Petersons were completely dependent upon Kathleen's salary and benefit package. They were forced to liquidate Kathleen's assets. They had been living on credit for years and by the end of 2001, they had $143,000 in credit card debt." The whole prosecution presentation about finances was left out of the movie. Michael was to receive over 1 million dollars in life insurance. Which he would have had to give his lawyers, I guess, since they where never paid because Michael did not have the money.

--"Juror, Richard Sarratt, said the case boiled down to a few key facts that David Rudolf never disputed:

1. There were skull-deep lacerations on the back of Kathleen Peterson's head.

2. There was blood on Michael Peterson's shorts and on the walls of the narrow back staircase that had dried and was then splattered with a second layer.

3. The neurons in Kathleen Peterson's brain indicated that she had remained alive for at least 30 minutes after the initial impact.

4. Michael Peterson was there, standing over his wife as she lay dying."

--"A few hours after Kathleen Peterson's murder, with her corpse still sitting at the bottom of his staircase, Mike was in the next room surfing the Internet and telephoning lawyers -- all the while, refusing to speak with police."

When the verdict was finally read, "the 60-year-old defendant had almost no reaction, his family and friends fell apart."

When Michael called 911 he never mentioned blood. The amount of blood was one of the first things noted by everyone else who arrived on the scene that night.

These last few things prove nothing; I just find them unusual from an innocent man. Please research for yourself, there is other stuff I couldn't find again quickly for this post, luminol footprints, Clayton's (Michael's son) recollection of the night, bizarre coincidences with the Ratliff case, etc.

Since this is the first time I've posted here, I have just found out that I cannot submit links, please send me a private message if you would like them.

If you haven't already seen it, watch "Capturing the Friedmans" for a similar experience of indecision about the guilt or innocence of those in the movie; except I think there really was an injustice done there...

[etexlady]

Great post, latrobe7. You summarized most of the salient points. I watched the case on Court TV. The film left out a lot of testimony, especially that of the prosecution's presentation. Most of the first part of the prosecution's case was a review of the couple's finances and the fact they were living way beyond their means. Kathleen was an executive at Nextel but there were massive layoffs going on at the time and it seemed she thought she would be losing her job soon. A prosecution theory is she was killed for her life insurance and it had to be done while she was still employed. A number of the legal pundits were shocked that David Rudolf agreed to allow the jury to visit the scene and felt that was a major turning point in the trial. The defense had suggested that the victim simply fell down 3-5 stairs bumping the back of her head causing the lacerations. When the jurors saw the scene and the amount of blood that was there it was evident that much more than a fall down 3 steps had occurred. It was odd also that Peterson had maintained the scene, blood and all, while still living in the house. I understand they had the stairwell itself boarded over but one would think the blood would smell after all that time. Perhaps he was ordered not to disturb the scene but who would want to live in those conditions. I agree that Peterson is where he belongs.

[beldar]

I watched this mostly in one sitting Sunday.

Granted, I wasn't there, but I also have trouble imagining a jury finding him guilty beyond all reasonable doubt.

I did a little googling and found one site whose author seemed to have a huge axe to grind against Peterson. I have to wonder what their motive is.

Remind me never to get charged with murder in NC.

[Eight47]

The Sundance Channel has some discussion about the case and documentary:

http://www.docday.com/discuss/?ixTopic=232&refType=Content&refID=7640

Interesting site that discounts the film:

http://www.peterson-staircase.com/index.html

[7thton]

Do you have links to any of the sites you quoted from?

I stumbled upon this on Sundance and got a season pass. After watching all of it I was outraged. I truly thought that the prosecutors where scary and on a witch-hunt. How could anyone find this man guilty beyond a reasonable doubt? I immediately went to the Internet to find info about his appeal; surely there must be a groundswell of support for this man and his family. What I found changed my mind. Michael Peterson is where he belongs.

At first I was surprised by the visceral tone of the sites condemning Michael Peterson and the movie, but I soon found some facts impossible to ignore. I quote and paraphrase what troubled me the most below, and include links to the two most comprehensive sites I found. The sites are as slanted against Michael Peterson as the movie was for him. After thoroughly reviewing them as well as the movie, I believe Michael Peterson is guilty and aside from the two dead women; the people most deserving sympathy are the children, particularly Martha and Margaret Ratliff who've lost their parents twice.

[latrobe7]

I have to post...

[latrobe7]

three more...

[latrobe7]

times before I can...

[latrobe7]

post links.

[latrobe7]

Most quotes came from this site:
http://www.peterson-staircase.com/index.html

Another site with lots of info (though so anti-Peterson it's almost distasteful):
http://www.vanceholmes.com/court/trial_m_peterson.html

[bruab]

Just want to say that we're down to the last 2 episodes and are really absorbed. It took a lot of effort to shut off the TiVo to keep from staying up until midnight to see the conclusion.


So far we're split on guilt/innocence - I'm having trouble with the whole defense theory explaining all those head injuries and all that blood. But the judge should not have let in as much other evidence as he did. Peterson sure seems broken up over her death. If he did it, he's one cold customer.

Also I thought of the theory that maybe in Germany he actually had had an affair with the girls' biological father and offed the mother when he died precisely so that he could raise the kids. Way out there, I know, but something to consider.

[etexlady]

DNA tests were done and show that neither of the girls are Michael Peterson's offspring.

[Peter000]

I'm now hooked on this documentary. Totally fascinating. I won't say more than that until I see all of them ( I recorded them all when they ran Monday). But it's just great... I'm through about half, and I'm still not sure whether the guy is guilty or not.

[beldar]

I hope you caught the NBC Dateline repeat last Friday that covered the same trial (from a substantially different perspective).

[mwhip]

Resurrecting old threads again. Been watching the DVD's from Netflix and had to skip all the talk because I am only 4 eps in.

I am really digging this show it so well done. The other DVD should be here this weekend and can't wait to get to the end.

[spunky monkey]

Thursday on ABC at 8PM a two hour 'Prime Time" special will once again cover "The Stair Case." I've watched all of the episodes in the Sundance
box set. I agree with latrobe7 that a show was put together purely for entertainment showing the "tragedy" of the verdict found by the jury for Michael Peterson. Having been on some lame juries, where the only interest
in justice was to get to hell out of the courthouse and home for dinner, the
ending of the story made illogical sense to me. However, your excellent analysis of the appeal finally,(for me), ended the story with a reasonable outcome.
Nice going.