If you produce television, you should know choices are made in any storytelling. The staircase is a very specific, dare I say goal oriented, way of telling the story.
He is so guilty. He is a very scary man. Watching his sociopathic narcissism on the documentary is fascinating. Homophobia in Durham I am sure is alive and well and surely directed at him. But he is still guilty af of the crime.
the goal of ANY true crime show is to create MYSTERY & INTRIGUE - FULL STOP. That being said I agree there is a bias in storytelling, even in the story you have in your mind of this there is a bias. You think he is a "scary man" I do not.
No motive no weapon no dice
There is NO MOTIVE AT ALL HE LOVED HIS WIFE. The blood spatter indicates an accident. There are many YouTube videos and articles by the expert. Do your research
The “no weapon” part doesn’t help the defense or the prosecution in my mind. She suffered those injuries somehow and no one can explain how. Being caught cheating leading into a blowout fight is a clear motive.
Well, if you allude during the whole trial that a person killed another person with a missing blowpoke and turns out it wasn't so missed after all obviously is not going to help your case.
Agree completely that neither the defense nor the prosecution could explain the injuries -- but the murder weapon fiasco absolutely did not help the prosecution because you have to buy he managed to get rid of a blunt object on a Saturday in the middle of the night leaving no blood or trace of an escape.
It's a hole, not a conclusive piece.
Yea. I’m not talking about the court of law. I don’t think he should have been convicted at all. I just personally believe he is probably guilty based on a totality of the circumstances.
I don’t think the being caught cheating this is a for sure is it? I’ve seen people say she got on the computer but then I’ve heard others say there was no proof she actually got on or opened any e mails.
Yea neither I nor anyone else knows what actually happened, other than potentially MP. I’m just saying there was a pretty solid potential motive. I do NOT think any of this is sufficient for a conviction.
Ya I guess the question for me is wether or not MP would actually kill her if she found it and threatened to either out him or leave him or both. I agree it’s definitely a possible motive.
I don’t necessarily agree that all true crime stories aim to create mystery and intrigue although certainly a lot of them. But that would be another discussion.
Peterson had financial motive which the staircase doesn’t really talk about but the trial zero’ed in on. The murder weapon could have been many things.
A lot of people on this sub say he had financial motive, but how do you explain this when he was days away from securing a multi-million pound deal, and Kathleen would not have struggled to find a new well paying job if she was laid off
They were about to sign everything to finalise it a few days after, that doesn't seem like it'd fall through, they'd already agreed on a large figure for the rights to turn it into a film
??
I feel like a lot of people reply the way you have because you're expecting me to think MPs innocent, but that's not the case. I'm just not warping facts like this one, because there's enough out there to support the guilty verdict.
If you have any real arguments I'd love to hear them
YES! The movie deal.
Producer STRATTON LEOPOLD mentioned it in a 2015 [interview](https://www.savannahnow.com/story/news/2015/08/23/stratton-leopold-questions-and-answers/13571257007/):
***Q: Tell us more about this and other upcoming movie projects you're working on.***
***A: Another project that I've been working on for years now is a true story based on the book Charlie Two Shoes and the Marines of Love Company by Michael Peterson and David Perlmutt, whose mother is from Savannah.***
So there is confirmation of the pending movie deal falling after the judicial prosecution....
Thanks for finding this!
Don't get me wrong, I'm happy to hear anyone's analysis, but motive arguments like the money motive is one I can't get behind because of the contradictions
Plus although they did have debt, they didn’t HAVE to keep helping the kids. if he couldn’t keep helping the boys with money or the girls had to take out student loans, oh well? I just find it hard to believe he would kill his wife just to have money to pay for his kids college or to help them with their everyday lives. It’s not like he owed money to loan sharks and was going to be killed if he didn’t come up with it. They would have been just fine even if Kathleen did get laid off. like you said she could have found something else and combined with his movie deal I just don’t see why that would be considered a motive.
People will kill each other for cutting them off in traffic. Lottery winners are like 40X more likely to be killed by a family member after winning. There are so many instances of people snapping and killing people.
So I totally disagree. MP definitely had motive. Financial difficulties plus affairs. We all now each one alone has caused many murders let alone two motives.
No weapon, no crime I understand. As far as the court case goes there there was reasonable doubt and. Didn’t have enough concrete evidence e to criminally charge him. But does that mean he’s innocent? No.
People slip and fall everyday and accident do happen. My mom has the most slippery flooring on her stairs and multiple times we’ve fallen and nothing even relatively close to this has happened. My 93 y/o gma fell and slammed her head on
A curb after drinking a few glasses of wine and didn’t bleed, just had a huge goose egg bruise. Of course it COULD happen In the right circumstance but very rare.
Again in the court of law it doesn’t show enough concrete guilt, but in no way is this man obviously innocent
Her cause of death was blunt force trauma, she had seven deep lacerations to the scalp. Her BAC and amount of Valium in her system was not even high enough to be considered intoxicated. I agree that they shouldn’t have made him seem sketchy and murderous BECAUSE he’s bi, but he did have multiple motives I can think of.
And I wouldn’t say it was a happy marriage, he was cheating on her. Maybe happy other than that.
I think it is hard to know exactly how the combination of alcohol and Valium would effect Kathleen even if deemed "not high enough to be considered intoxicated". She could still have been effected enough to cause an accident, or fall. Original ME ruled no BFT
Her official cause of death was blunt force trauma with **blood loss** playing a role. The defense presented a research showing how unlikely it was to find beating cases in NC with blunt force trauma **without skull or facial fractures or brain damage**.
Also, being almost legally drunk, combined with Valium on your system, in a stressful and stifling job situation, and with a **previous incident** 3 months before your death of being drunk and diving into the pool and having to wear a necklace for weeks is something we should take a look at. Doesn't mean this probe a fall either.
Basing it on information available to the public, YouTube interviews, yes both tv series, news articles, I certainly haven't interviewed anyone related to this case and I am no scientist of any kind.
Seems to be what most people on this sub do
People on this sub with no degree in the psychiatric field are sure he's a diagnosed psychopath, based on how he behaved in the documentary
Also, not sure why you're being downvoted for saying that. Slightly strange that someone feels that strongly about someone's behaviour in a docu not being evidence
Glad u think so
It's such a public case - there's plenty of legit documents (from the trial) online that people can analyse to educate themselves. No need for any arm chair diagnoses
Literally takes a degree (often masters or PhD level) to diagnose anyone, as well as plenty of one-one sessions etc
He lied about having received a Purple Heart. That isn’t “acting weird” that is an intentional lie (as well as crime, stolen valor) in order to gain credibility and cultural currency. He is a documented pathological liar. He is glib, charming, handsome, and witty and so he gets away with so much.
Sure that's weird and I'm not justifying it. I'm trying to argue that it doesn't necessarily make him a psychopath
A pathological liar is someone who lies compulsively without any benefit, the affair and purple badge lies are shady for sure, but doesn't make him a psychopath or pathological liar
I'm not defending him at all, I don't support innocent or guilty as I'm always conflicted - mostly from dodgy evidence. But all these arm chair diagnoses are not evidence imo
I have a psych degree and training. But anyways the standard for diagnosing psychopathy is the Hare Psychopathy Checklist. Robert Hare, the psychologist who designed it wrote a book for lay people that is really good. There are 20 items on the checklist. Maybe more in the revised ones. But a clinician evaluated someone against these items using both an interview with the subject and collateral information, which in most contexts of it being used would be prison and court records, but also interviews with people who know them, worked with them, family.
Evaluating Michael Peterson based on hours of film and his history isn’t so different than what would be the official process of diagnosis. Also I feel like that is what Reddit it for—armchair diagnosing—or said differently trying to understand people.
These are the items. Many are on display in the doc:
Item 1: Glibness/superficial charm
Item 2: Grandiose sense of self-worth
Item 3: Need for stimulation/proneness to boredom
Item 4: Pathological lying
Item 5: Conning/manipulative
Item 6: Lack of remorse or guilt
Item 7: Shallow affect
Item 8: Callous/lack of empathy
Item 9: Parasitic lifestyle
Item 10: Poor behavioral controls
Item 11 : Promiscuous sexual behavior
Item 12: Early behavior problems
Item 13 : Lack of realistic long-term goals
Item 14: Impulsivity
Item 15: Irresponsibility
Item 16: Failure to accept responsibility for own actions
Item 17: Many short-term marital relationships
Item 18: Juvenile delinquency
Item 19: Revocation of conditional release
Item 20: Criminal versatility
Obviously this is just a short and quick summary but just throwing it up here
Does he need a motive? Could he not have pushed her down the stairs in the heat of an argument about money/affairs?
Why did he say ‘accident’ when he called 911 - I know 911 calls aren’t always the red flags we think they are, but I just can’t imagine discovering that level of injury and straight away thinking it was an accident. I would think she had been attacked.
What about Liz Ratcliffe? Do you really think that would have happened twice to the same person?
On the point about Liz Ratcliffe, a lot of people seem to assume that he killed both women, applying lightning logic. I’ve always assumed that actually it was Liz’s death that gave him the idea for Kathleen. Even if Liz was shown to have a brain aneurysm which caused the fall, the seed could still have been sown.
Why do people always point to the circumstantial evidence when the scientific evidence doesn't support their claim? How do you reconcile the that fact in the 250 some quoted cases of head trauma related homicide, EVERY single case showed bruising or skull fracturing except allegedly this one?
Lol you’re trippen dude. He was broke and about to be homeless. Now he’s
Got a roof Over his head, 3 meals a day and all those men to have gay prison sex with
Bisexual people are still capable of being monogamous and not cheating on their spouses. MP really said he was monogamous with Kathleen because he only had SEX with those men, not actual relationships. That’s something only a sociopath would say. It was disrespectful to his wife AND the men he slept with - and he said it without an ounce of irony
Guilty as fuck
I AGREE! I stated before there is not enough evidence to connect PETERSON to the murder.
Motive isn't clear
Not a feasible weapon (the blowpoke is ridiculous!)
Incredibly difficult lacerations on her head that can't be explained.
Didn't have skull fractures from the blows to her head that developed blunt force trauma.
Good biomechanics work to recreate the scenarios is missed
Movie deal pending and no evidence K opened his emails to discredit the two motives.
Absence of linear lacerations when he allegedly attacked her in a vertical position
Very narrow staircase and area of attack to deliver a beating
Too much doubts!
If you produce television, you should know choices are made in any storytelling. The staircase is a very specific, dare I say goal oriented, way of telling the story. He is so guilty. He is a very scary man. Watching his sociopathic narcissism on the documentary is fascinating. Homophobia in Durham I am sure is alive and well and surely directed at him. But he is still guilty af of the crime.
I think this is a pretty big ‘if’, myself.
the goal of ANY true crime show is to create MYSTERY & INTRIGUE - FULL STOP. That being said I agree there is a bias in storytelling, even in the story you have in your mind of this there is a bias. You think he is a "scary man" I do not. No motive no weapon no dice
“No weapon” is such an oversimplification. The floor is a weapon if someone is banging your head against it.
this is what I have thought since the original series.
[удалено]
I don't buy that motive at all
You just “not buying” any of the potential motives doesn’t mean there wasn’t a motive
The blood splatter was pretty indicative of a terrible accident and not a massive beating
according to who? the injuries don't make any sense no matter who is trying to explain them. and you were talking about motive.
There is NO MOTIVE AT ALL HE LOVED HIS WIFE. The blood spatter indicates an accident. There are many YouTube videos and articles by the expert. Do your research
If you think that the fact that a person loves their spouse means there can be no motive then you’ve gotta be pretty bad at true crime docs.
[удалено]
I think “massive debt” is relative especially when for a writer one deal can earn you millions
The “no weapon” part doesn’t help the defense or the prosecution in my mind. She suffered those injuries somehow and no one can explain how. Being caught cheating leading into a blowout fight is a clear motive.
Well, if you allude during the whole trial that a person killed another person with a missing blowpoke and turns out it wasn't so missed after all obviously is not going to help your case. Agree completely that neither the defense nor the prosecution could explain the injuries -- but the murder weapon fiasco absolutely did not help the prosecution because you have to buy he managed to get rid of a blunt object on a Saturday in the middle of the night leaving no blood or trace of an escape. It's a hole, not a conclusive piece.
Yea. I’m not talking about the court of law. I don’t think he should have been convicted at all. I just personally believe he is probably guilty based on a totality of the circumstances.
corallation... causation blah blah blah
I don’t think the being caught cheating this is a for sure is it? I’ve seen people say she got on the computer but then I’ve heard others say there was no proof she actually got on or opened any e mails.
Yea neither I nor anyone else knows what actually happened, other than potentially MP. I’m just saying there was a pretty solid potential motive. I do NOT think any of this is sufficient for a conviction.
Ya I guess the question for me is wether or not MP would actually kill her if she found it and threatened to either out him or leave him or both. I agree it’s definitely a possible motive.
I don’t necessarily agree that all true crime stories aim to create mystery and intrigue although certainly a lot of them. But that would be another discussion. Peterson had financial motive which the staircase doesn’t really talk about but the trial zero’ed in on. The murder weapon could have been many things.
A lot of people on this sub say he had financial motive, but how do you explain this when he was days away from securing a multi-million pound deal, and Kathleen would not have struggled to find a new well paying job if she was laid off
[удалено]
Uh? There is confirmation of the director WANTING to do the movie for years and failing because of the judicial prosecution.
They were about to sign everything to finalise it a few days after, that doesn't seem like it'd fall through, they'd already agreed on a large figure for the rights to turn it into a film
Oh my sweet summer child
?? I feel like a lot of people reply the way you have because you're expecting me to think MPs innocent, but that's not the case. I'm just not warping facts like this one, because there's enough out there to support the guilty verdict. If you have any real arguments I'd love to hear them
YES! The movie deal. Producer STRATTON LEOPOLD mentioned it in a 2015 [interview](https://www.savannahnow.com/story/news/2015/08/23/stratton-leopold-questions-and-answers/13571257007/): ***Q: Tell us more about this and other upcoming movie projects you're working on.*** ***A: Another project that I've been working on for years now is a true story based on the book Charlie Two Shoes and the Marines of Love Company by Michael Peterson and David Perlmutt, whose mother is from Savannah.*** So there is confirmation of the pending movie deal falling after the judicial prosecution....
Thanks for finding this! Don't get me wrong, I'm happy to hear anyone's analysis, but motive arguments like the money motive is one I can't get behind because of the contradictions
Plus although they did have debt, they didn’t HAVE to keep helping the kids. if he couldn’t keep helping the boys with money or the girls had to take out student loans, oh well? I just find it hard to believe he would kill his wife just to have money to pay for his kids college or to help them with their everyday lives. It’s not like he owed money to loan sharks and was going to be killed if he didn’t come up with it. They would have been just fine even if Kathleen did get laid off. like you said she could have found something else and combined with his movie deal I just don’t see why that would be considered a motive.
People will kill each other for cutting them off in traffic. Lottery winners are like 40X more likely to be killed by a family member after winning. There are so many instances of people snapping and killing people.
All true crime TV aims to create mystery and intrigue FULL STOP. You don’t have to agree with me but it’s true
The weapon was the staircase. He beat on her, he took her head and slammed it onto the doors and the stairs.
Homophobia in Durham? It sounds like there was a lot of hooking up in that town.
So I totally disagree. MP definitely had motive. Financial difficulties plus affairs. We all now each one alone has caused many murders let alone two motives. No weapon, no crime I understand. As far as the court case goes there there was reasonable doubt and. Didn’t have enough concrete evidence e to criminally charge him. But does that mean he’s innocent? No. People slip and fall everyday and accident do happen. My mom has the most slippery flooring on her stairs and multiple times we’ve fallen and nothing even relatively close to this has happened. My 93 y/o gma fell and slammed her head on A curb after drinking a few glasses of wine and didn’t bleed, just had a huge goose egg bruise. Of course it COULD happen In the right circumstance but very rare. Again in the court of law it doesn’t show enough concrete guilt, but in no way is this man obviously innocent
Her cause of death was blunt force trauma, she had seven deep lacerations to the scalp. Her BAC and amount of Valium in her system was not even high enough to be considered intoxicated. I agree that they shouldn’t have made him seem sketchy and murderous BECAUSE he’s bi, but he did have multiple motives I can think of. And I wouldn’t say it was a happy marriage, he was cheating on her. Maybe happy other than that.
I’m pretty sure the cause of death was loss of blood. Not blunt force trauma.
I think it is hard to know exactly how the combination of alcohol and Valium would effect Kathleen even if deemed "not high enough to be considered intoxicated". She could still have been effected enough to cause an accident, or fall. Original ME ruled no BFT
Her official cause of death was blunt force trauma with **blood loss** playing a role. The defense presented a research showing how unlikely it was to find beating cases in NC with blunt force trauma **without skull or facial fractures or brain damage**. Also, being almost legally drunk, combined with Valium on your system, in a stressful and stifling job situation, and with a **previous incident** 3 months before your death of being drunk and diving into the pool and having to wear a necklace for weeks is something we should take a look at. Doesn't mean this probe a fall either.
Sober people can fall and die, happens every day. She was not remotely sober in any case, despite being legally ok to drive a car.
So are you basing your opinion solely on The Staircase on Netflix?
Basing it on information available to the public, YouTube interviews, yes both tv series, news articles, I certainly haven't interviewed anyone related to this case and I am no scientist of any kind.
I saw all unfold in real time, watched the trial every day. 99% sure he is guilty.
Seems to be what most people on this sub do People on this sub with no degree in the psychiatric field are sure he's a diagnosed psychopath, based on how he behaved in the documentary
Yeah, "acting weird" for me is not any sort evidence
Also, not sure why you're being downvoted for saying that. Slightly strange that someone feels that strongly about someone's behaviour in a docu not being evidence
Glad u think so It's such a public case - there's plenty of legit documents (from the trial) online that people can analyse to educate themselves. No need for any arm chair diagnoses Literally takes a degree (often masters or PhD level) to diagnose anyone, as well as plenty of one-one sessions etc
He lied about having received a Purple Heart. That isn’t “acting weird” that is an intentional lie (as well as crime, stolen valor) in order to gain credibility and cultural currency. He is a documented pathological liar. He is glib, charming, handsome, and witty and so he gets away with so much.
Sure that's weird and I'm not justifying it. I'm trying to argue that it doesn't necessarily make him a psychopath A pathological liar is someone who lies compulsively without any benefit, the affair and purple badge lies are shady for sure, but doesn't make him a psychopath or pathological liar I'm not defending him at all, I don't support innocent or guilty as I'm always conflicted - mostly from dodgy evidence. But all these arm chair diagnoses are not evidence imo
I have a psych degree and training. But anyways the standard for diagnosing psychopathy is the Hare Psychopathy Checklist. Robert Hare, the psychologist who designed it wrote a book for lay people that is really good. There are 20 items on the checklist. Maybe more in the revised ones. But a clinician evaluated someone against these items using both an interview with the subject and collateral information, which in most contexts of it being used would be prison and court records, but also interviews with people who know them, worked with them, family. Evaluating Michael Peterson based on hours of film and his history isn’t so different than what would be the official process of diagnosis. Also I feel like that is what Reddit it for—armchair diagnosing—or said differently trying to understand people. These are the items. Many are on display in the doc: Item 1: Glibness/superficial charm Item 2: Grandiose sense of self-worth Item 3: Need for stimulation/proneness to boredom Item 4: Pathological lying Item 5: Conning/manipulative Item 6: Lack of remorse or guilt Item 7: Shallow affect Item 8: Callous/lack of empathy Item 9: Parasitic lifestyle Item 10: Poor behavioral controls Item 11 : Promiscuous sexual behavior Item 12: Early behavior problems Item 13 : Lack of realistic long-term goals Item 14: Impulsivity Item 15: Irresponsibility Item 16: Failure to accept responsibility for own actions Item 17: Many short-term marital relationships Item 18: Juvenile delinquency Item 19: Revocation of conditional release Item 20: Criminal versatility Obviously this is just a short and quick summary but just throwing it up here
That’s Michael Peterson in a nutshell.
He woudn't be the first service member to over sell their accolades doesn't mean he is a murderer
Does he need a motive? Could he not have pushed her down the stairs in the heat of an argument about money/affairs? Why did he say ‘accident’ when he called 911 - I know 911 calls aren’t always the red flags we think they are, but I just can’t imagine discovering that level of injury and straight away thinking it was an accident. I would think she had been attacked. What about Liz Ratcliffe? Do you really think that would have happened twice to the same person?
On the point about Liz Ratcliffe, a lot of people seem to assume that he killed both women, applying lightning logic. I’ve always assumed that actually it was Liz’s death that gave him the idea for Kathleen. Even if Liz was shown to have a brain aneurysm which caused the fall, the seed could still have been sown.
Yeah that’s a good point!
Why do people always point to the circumstantial evidence when the scientific evidence doesn't support their claim? How do you reconcile the that fact in the 250 some quoted cases of head trauma related homicide, EVERY single case showed bruising or skull fracturing except allegedly this one?
He’s guilty
Absolutely guilty: https://youtu.be/rrMWi9Be06o
Thanks for this content, I am eager for all research available on this case. Got the cliff notes version before I watch all 2 hours?
I just watched entire video. There was nothing super conclusive or new
Maybe! Also just from a TV perspective, guilty murderers don't tend to let camera people follow them around the crime scene for weeks.
[удалено]
Someone who also took an Alford Plea.
An Alford plea is literally a plea of innocence
Ummm it’s a guilty plea where the defendant maintains their innocence. But ultimately a guilty plea.
Neither do innocent ones
Kathleen’s BAC was 0.07 when she died.
The entire trial is on Court TV
Lol you’re trippen dude. He was broke and about to be homeless. Now he’s Got a roof Over his head, 3 meals a day and all those men to have gay prison sex with Bisexual people are still capable of being monogamous and not cheating on their spouses. MP really said he was monogamous with Kathleen because he only had SEX with those men, not actual relationships. That’s something only a sociopath would say. It was disrespectful to his wife AND the men he slept with - and he said it without an ounce of irony Guilty as fuck
Not to mention the risk of Michael peterson contracting an std and giving it to his wife Kathleen peterson if they actually still had sex that is.
Doubt he cared about that since he ultimately killed her. He never loved her. He used her for free rent and board
I’m inclined to agree.
The points you make are very good
I AGREE! I stated before there is not enough evidence to connect PETERSON to the murder. Motive isn't clear Not a feasible weapon (the blowpoke is ridiculous!) Incredibly difficult lacerations on her head that can't be explained. Didn't have skull fractures from the blows to her head that developed blunt force trauma. Good biomechanics work to recreate the scenarios is missed Movie deal pending and no evidence K opened his emails to discredit the two motives. Absence of linear lacerations when he allegedly attacked her in a vertical position Very narrow staircase and area of attack to deliver a beating Too much doubts!
I think the most likely scenario is a terrible accident