The Staircase: Michael Peterson docu-series (spoilers?)

[Centrist Simon Steele]

I searched for a thread on this, but nothing turned up. I'm surprised! I thought this docu-series would have its own thread. Either way, I've mostly watched all of it (on Netflix), and I feel myself overwhelmed by the way America's justice system works.

For those who haven't seen the series and want to watch, I'll write about spoilers below. More generally, I hadn't remembered this trial when it occurred back in 2003 (or maybe I've forgotten). But American novelist Michael Peterson, in 2001, found his wife at the bottom of their home's staircase, and he called 911 saying she must have fallen, and that he thought she was still alive. Very quickly he was charged with murder, and this docu-series covers the trial in depth.

 

Spoilers (just in case you want to watch this without spoilers, but you're still reading):

I've seen this kind of doc before (Making a Murderer apparently was inspired by this), and I know the documentary omitted important aspects of Michael Peterson's case, but based on what I saw, I feel reasonable doubt existed to prevent a conviction.

I don't know if Peterson did it or not. The series favors his perspective of being innocent, and the final, unanimous verdict of guilty was really frustrating. Our justice system seems built in a way that makes "reasonable doubt" an impossibility. The district attorneys want a conviction, and their speculation really felt vindictive. The police not investigating in a way to figure out what happened, but to find evidence that supported their belief that Peterson murdered his wife, is equally frustrating. Justice shouldn't be about vengeance. Allowing Peterson's bi-sexuality seemed horribly inappropriate (whether or not the defense says this was a good marriage). The court seemed to believe, at the time, that a jury could put biases about sexual orientation aside and consider if his bi-sexuality and attempts to make contact with male escort only suggested that his marriage was bad. Even if it was, how many bad marriages don't end in murder? Most of them?

In the closing arguments of the prosecution, they even used his status as a fiction writer as a means of turning him into a liar who creates false realities! Of course, Peterson served...9 years and ultimately got an Alford plea (which I don't even want to get into at the moment) because of the now surfaced, undisputed proof that the prosecution's witness, a special investigator for the state, lied on the stand about his expertise and lied that the blood "spatter" was indicative of a murder.

I'm just really frustrated right now. Mostly I feel for the kids of Peterson, especially his daughters, who had to re-see the death of their biological mother (in the early 80s) through the prosecution's argument that Peterson murdered her too. His daughters, especially the younger one, seems to have been impacted in significantly negative ways as she stood by her father through all of this.

This is what gets me about our justice system. Is it better to maybe catch a killer? I don't want murderers running around, but I also don't feel our safety or justice is increased by locking up people who might not have killed anyone. In 2003, I think forensic science wasn't questioned, but the Innocence Project has shown us over the last fifteen years, that the majority of forensic science is, in fact, pseudo science. When someone reports a loved ones death, and that person says, "I found her at the bottom of the stairs, she must have fallen," why is it the police can't operate primarily on that assumption? If there's a chance of foul play, I get it, investigate it, but like any scientific endeavor, you should peer review these findings. The state examiner thinks these injuries are consistent with a murder, but let's also check what conclusions other respected individuals in the field would say. You eliminate possibilities through repeated examinations. I think getting one perspective and using that to build a case is criminal. The police, the prosecutors, and the government investigators working with them all work toward building a case. Not figuring out what happened.

I think our trial by jury system is even more flawed. Is it reasonable for your average American to remove the horror they feel when looking at the outcome of a tragedy like this? When you see the pictures, you feel a visceral reaction of despair and anger if you believe that Kathleen Peterson was murdered. It's human nature, I think, to want to punish when we believe a human was brutally murdered. Once you experience this, can you recover from it? Or is your mind made up? Will you select evidence that fits the view you created and disregard any evidence to the contrary?

[Macklunkey]

Obviously all countries have miscarriages of justice but I must say that the American legal system appears to be absolutely terrifying.

[mactwist2]

I think he did it but the prosecution was incompetent. Idk why they latched onto the blow poke idea and that blood splatter analyst was a straight up moron. That said overall i still think he did it based on the whole picture. How many close people have you known fell down the stairs to their deaths? He's known two. 

[mactwist2]

18 minutes ago, Triskele said:

That was another very interesting detail.  That he'd had another fall / death.  The sister seemed to think that was evidence that he did it.

But if it wasn't the blow poke that still leaves a big question because a fall alone is not consistent with the injuries. 

I'm glad you brought up the blood analyst.  Moron or villain?  Either way, that guy really sucked.  Not only did he do an absolute shit job, he was quite unlikeable to boot.  Straight out of central casting.  

Well the guy was basically paid to "prove" that he killed this chick with a blow poke even when it was clear that didn't happen. So yeah you can say he's a villain but so are most lawyers imo because they don't care who did what they just want to enforce their narrative. It's been a big since I've seen it but i was like 95% sure he did it and 100% sure it had nothing to do with a fucking blow poke lol.

[Centrist Simon Steele]

I'll check out Long Shot, thanks!

I'm not sure what I think about the owl theory. On the one hand it sounds really outlandish, but on the other, I think the idea that she was beat to death doesn't add up with her injuries either.

And I hated that blood expert. It was funny listening to the one the defense hired try to explain why he complimented the other blood "expert" when he signed a book for him.

[Centrist Simon Steele]

On 11/4/2018 at 10:22 PM, Triskele said:

Yeah, that's one of the things that's so compelling is that both the blow poke beating theory and the straight fall theory both do not really feel like they could be correct.  The owl sure feels out of left field on the surface, but it seems to make more sense with the injuries.  

But if the owl theory is not the explanation then it seems like we're still in a very interesting spot where neither of the other theories work either and we don't know how she died. 

Agreed. The owl theory actually has a lot of merit (when you get past the thought of an owl attacking someone) especially when paired with the fact that Kathleen P. was intoxicated and had Valium in her system. Of course, given just that, I can see the fall being very plausible too. I think we can't know, but because we can't, he should never have been convicted. I wish the justice system worked toward justice. The point Peterson made (before conviction) about poor people not having a chance was really salient. Peterson mounted a good defense--whether he did it or not. How many innocent people who couldn't afford good defense went to prison/death row? I bet there's a quantifiable number (that only represents a fraction of the times it has happened). 

[Dolorous Gabe]

Yeah I felt the defence failed to make enough of the alcohol/valium angle. Combine that with the narrowness and darkness of that staircase and the fall theory seems ever more plausible.

The prejudices of that jury were clear from their reaction to the Asian blood spatter analyst, so it seems very likely that Peterson's sexual orientation would have affected their perception in the same way.

Peterson is an unusual guy and that played very much against him.

[Dolorous Gabe]

14 hours ago, Triskele said:

Just to clarify my position, that someone could have slipped and fell on the stairs and hit their head badly and bled to death is not hard for me to believe.  It just didn't seem like the lacerations and blood spatter, however bad what's his names's BS analysis of the spatter was, seemed plausible from just a fall.  It seemed like something more violent happened.  

Oh for sure. I agree that neither theory seemed fully supported by the evidence. But who knows what one nasty head wound would do to someone intoxicated by alcohol and valium!

And I agree that the owl theory seems a more plausible explanation of the wounds.

I do think the reason he was ultimately convicted was prejudice on the part of the jury though (apart from some highly dodgy police and prosecution procedure).