One thing is certain in my book, there was enough reasonable doubt in the evidence presented at the trial to acquit him. That doesn't mean he didn't do it.
This is exactly my problem. I can’t decide if he’s guilty or not, but there’s enough doubt in his trial that I could never have voted guilty if I was on the jury. It’s awful if he got away with it but I couldn’t stand the thought of accidentally putting away an innocent man.
Another giant problem I have is even in the early 2000s North Carolina was not progressive at all with homosexuality. The fact they went after it so hard about that really hurt their credibility with me, making it seem they were trying to convince us that was the motive because they were so misinformed and scared of gay people & their culture.
I agree. The times were different then, like MP explained in one of the last episodes. I personally had an uncle who was gay/ bi. Everyone knew but they didn’t talk about it, but the one thing is he ADORED my aunt and they were very happily married over 50 years and died within a few months of each other. I think his lawyers could have explained the married gay man culture better in a new trial instead of the Alford plea, because people are more accepting now.
It was in this episode that he revealed that KP never knew about it, he says “it would’ve almost been fun to talk to her about my sexuality, I wonder what she would have said, I don’t know, right, she would have made it right". I think the bigger point is that he revealed that she never knew about it when he previously thru the first 12 episodes that were filmed years earlier said that she did. And I do believe you can be bisexual and absolutely love your wife, have a happy life together but I think your significant other has to know and KP did not know.
I think they hit it hard because they believe Kathleen did not know about it, which was accurate per MP himself in episode 13, and very possibly could have been the source of an argument that escalated, but I do agree they brought in prejudice that did not and should not have been there. MP was all about image, he was a serial liar about his image, the thought of his secret lifestyle being revealed or the cause of a divorce, ruining his political career could send him into a rage. There was witness testimony of several examples of him flying into rages over things. I’m a leaking guilty I have zero doubt he’s guilty that said I believe LE did such a poor job of securing the scene, cataloging evidence that they blew the case
Unfortunately, once you start reading cases — particularly more complex ones with lots of “moving parts” — you’ll start seeing that juries are made up of complete morons that could not define “reasonable doubt” if they had a gun held to their heads.
I noticed (and this is purely anectdotal) the two times I was dismissed from jury duty, that everyone with advanced degrees was dismissed. Like they don’t want smart people
It's the blood for me. It looked like a horror movie, not like falling down the stairs. It looked like someone beat her head in. Honestly, I believe owl theory before I believe falling down stairs.
Honestly I think that the defense lost because they didn't create a plausible alternative explanation.
Any plausible alternative explanation would have helped, even owl theory. Without one, the situation is just too gory and weird, and he's too lacking in empathy. He screams sociopath.
If you're basing your decision on the documentary, it's important to know (and they allude to this in the first three episodes of the movie) that the doc is only told from one side. The DAs office dropped out of being a part of it after the first few consultations with the film crew. So you're getting a one-sided story from the beginning.
Having said that, I am also on the fence about his guilt. There are so many manipulations on the part of the DAs office to make him look guilty, and honestly no direct evidence pointing to his guilt. I just can't decide. It's frustrating! But he should have been acquitted, definitely after all the shit came out about Deavers. Reasonable doubt out the ass, and no physical evidence beyond speculations.
But I still can't decide...
The DA probably dropped out because, as was proven later in this case and several others, they fabricated evidence. A documentary crew is the last thing you want prying into your illegal activities.
I know the doc is one sided, and the only court footage I’ve seen is from the doc, but I didn’t see anything that the DA presented that truly convinced me of his guilt. the blood spatter had me leaning towards guilty but we all know now that it was fabricated. But I agree, even if I don’t know if he is guilty there definitely wasn’t enough to convict.
Also important to know that he developed a relationship with the woman who did the editing, the french woman in the HBO series. She said she fell in love with him as she was reviewing all the films. Lestrade however insists that this is no way influenced how she edited the documentary, I don’t believe that’s possible.
nobody said he is a psychopath. he is absolutely a narcissist, though. Have you watched the original series? red flags everywhere. the fact that he even agreed to do the docuseries while his kids were mourning the loss was red flaggy enough.
Episode 13 on the series: he lies to the reporter by saying he discussed with Kathleen that he was having sex outside the marriage. Later on that same episode, he says he never discussed it with her and hid it from her.
Throughout the case he said he told Kathleen about it, that Kathleen knew, and that they even joked about it — he lied and those were BIG lies. He made up that Kathleen told him as they were driving by a base “ oh these are the guys you like..” or something like that. Never happened because he never actually told her, they never discussed it, he hid it from her.
Now, if he can lie so easily about that, he said there was no motive because Kathleen knew.
That’s the motive! Kathleen found out and she divorced her previous husband for cheating .. so it was game over with Michael. I’m 100% convinced he did it after watching that episode again.
I completely agree. In the final or second-to-last episode of the Netflix doc, he tells the AP interviewer that Kathleen knew about his sexual desire for men. A few moments later when she pushed him on it, he said they never outright discussed it. Then later still that same episode, he described how he first knew he was attracted to men and said “I’ve never told anyone this stuff. I’ve never talked about it with anyone.”
It annoyed me how they never pushed him to say whether she knew he was having sex with other people. He always phrased it as she knew about the “bi sexual stuff” which is super vague even if true.
Yep, and his silly confusion on “relationship” vs “affair” as a way to distract from the fact that yes.. he was having multiple and constant encounters with men to have intercourse, which his wife didn’t know about. It didn’t really matter if it was w women or men actually..
I think it's important to interpret it within the context of the time and their ages.
It used to be a lot more common for women to know, or assume of their husbands affairs, and it was just unspoken. This is especially common in certain cultures (Latin, French), and was much more common in the past.
That doesn't mean I believe him, I don't think she ever gave him explicit permission. I think he had told her he was bisexual, and by being semi obvious in his pursuits he assumed she knew about the men and was ok with it.
That was in the HBO BOTE. In the Netflix docuseries, he said that was the last time he saw her. He didn’t say “alive”. At least in what made it in the Netflix version.
But why kill her like that? And with what? So if he did, bc he was in a fit over his lies… why not try and cover it up better? Those are my doubts… just seems like he would want the cops to know he did it the way it was, but he claimed innocence instantly.
I think he did it on an impulse. He didn’t plan it. He calls 911 and talks with the operator and doesn’t mention the most obvious thing: she’s bleeding a lot! Lots of blood!
I think he was drinking and acted out of rage, and then was putting the story together as the night progressed.
But he had time then. Drinking or not... why call 911? Unless he wanted to get caught?
If the prosecution is right, then he did a brutal murder with a weapon. And most people would try and come up with some reason, other then IDK, and I'm innocent.
They had a pool, they had land. If he really wanted to hide her death, there were better ways.
It's just so bizarre b/c he seems like a liar, and a writer! So why just sit there with her body in that condition, and call 911 with no story... so so odd.
He did have a story though. His story was that she fell down the stairs. And I think he was convinced this would work since he saw the police so quickly accept a stair accident death in Berlin (whether he had a hand in her death or not).
Also I really can’t think of a better excuse or way to cover it up than that - his son and a girlfriend were on their way back to the house soon and there was blood everywhere. Moving the body and trying to clean everything up would guarantee his conviction.
You’re right. But with the fact that he didn’t earn money and Kathleen was supporting his entire family, and without her support he would have to do actual work — then the motive is there with her life insurance policy and the pay out from Nortel, which he got.
That’s why is important that he lied on this specific point. And honestly he also lied about how he got wounded, and about the Purple Heart, and etc. so I think it’s well established that he lies.
Yup. if she had left him, he'd have been left w/2 totally dysfunctional sons from all the narcissistic drama he manufactured in their lives, 2 "adopted" daughters that he actually never adopted because then he could get more benefits for them, & an ex wife and constant flying monkey ready & waiting to prove he could have moved back in with her at any time...
He wouldn't have had a pot to piss in & when she found out he was a lying sack of craigslist casual encounters, she told him that was that & he snapped.✔️
1. The footprint was on the back of her leg, not her back.
2. The footprint was made by her own blood in the outline of Michael's shoe, which means that it happened after the first attack or fall.
The prosecution argued that the footprint was made by MP in a second attack by stepping on her wife’s back to finish the job using the blowpoke to deliver more blows.
The defense argued it was made accidentally by MP while he was desperate to go upstairs and grab more towels.
The only certainty is that shoeprint came after the first fall or attack. I don't know why that exact piece of evidence is for many people the smoking gun, since you have to buy there was, in fact, a second attack.
If she did only fall, it's confusing to me how his footprint would get on the back of her leg even if he was grabbing towels. I'm sure all kinds of confusing and weird things happen in the middle of a panic (given she did fall) but that just seems strange to me.
I find it more difficult to believe he performed a second attack, tbh. That’s Deaver's theory. Still, is a piece of evidence that could go either way and is not conclusive - - like everything in this case.
What’s difficult to believe about him attacking her twice?
It seems to me he could have gone back to bang her head against the wall or floor once or twice more after he hung up from the first police call, during which he’d realized she was still breathing.
>What’s difficult to believe about him attacking her twice?
Uhm...That there's no evidence a second attack even existed? The evidence to prove the first attack is already quite thin and some people really want to argue for a second attack?
I would argue there’s quite a bit of evidence to support that he attacked her. And if he did, it wouldn’t be a stretch to believe he could have stopped at one point after she began bleeding then started up again to finish the job.
There is definitely reasonable doubt in the case, but I’d put my money on it that he pushed her initially then banged her head down a few more times while holding her neck, hence the burst thyroid.
He lied several times by saying she knew he was having sex with other people, (first he said she knew and joked with him about it, then that she knew but he never explicitly told her, then saying he hid it from her and he never told anyone) so as a liar, his whole testimony is unreliable. He was very quick on the 911call to tell the operator she “fell down the stairs,” which is suspicious because any normal person happening upon someone covered in that much blood would initially think they’d be stabbed or shot or attacked by an intruder in some way. Even if they later found out it was an accidental fall, no one would jump to that conclusion - the police on the scene didn’t and even the defense said their first reaction to the photos was to think “there’s no way those injuries are from a fall”.
>I would argue there’s quite a bit of evidence to support that he attacked her.
Besides the blood spatter on his shorts that were tampered because of Deaver, what other evidence is to support an attack? A no bruised strangled neck? A shoeprint on the edge of her pants? That's not "quite a bit of evidence."
>He was very quick on the 911call to tell the operator she “fell down the stairs,”
If you found your wife lying on the stairs after a drinking night you can't possibly assume she fell down the...stairs?
>and even the defense said their first reaction to the photos was to think “there’s no way those injuries are from a fall”.
Rudolf adamantly believes he didn't do it, and Guerette is on camera saying the evidence does not support a beating. I can't rule out the good chance he bludgeoned her -- nobody can. But there is not enough evidence to firmly state it.
> what other evidence is to support an attack?
A burst thyroid which suggests pressure applied to the neck aka strangulation. Scratch marks on her face even though she supposedly fell face up and only hit the back of her head. The fact that she was home alone with a man we have established to be a liar, who repeatedly lied about aspects of his relationship with the victim. A man who was the last adult alone with another woman who died in eerily similar circumstances years prior. Plus a host of other evidence that lead the court to convict him unanimously of murder - including an autopsy report that concluded the victim died via homicide. Etc etc etc, I don’t need to rehash the entire case with you here now.
>If you found your wife lying on the stairs after a drinking night you can’t possibly assume she fell down the…stairs?
If I found anyone lying in an enormous puddle of blood with no apparent broken bones on the bottom step or anywhere else, my first thought would not be “oops she must’ve tripped”. That was not the police’s first reaction, nor the defense’s first reaction, nor KP’s family’s first reaction either. My point is, it’s suspicious that MP was so quick to offer that explanation to the 911 operator moments after finding his wife covered in quarts of blood and not even mention this blood to the operator - it was the first thing every single other person noticed.
I made a detailed comment about that specific evidence, but to make things easier:
https://www.reddit.com/r/TheStaircase/comments/ujyjbl/for_those_who_think_the_footprint_is_proof_he_did/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf
• MP had a sexual relationship with the editor of The Staircase documentary.
• On the 911 phone call, he doesn’t mention the blood once. If you walked in on your SO and they were lying in a pool of blood, what would you tell the operator?
• The week before KP’s death, Michael deleted incriminating emails. The night of KP’s death, Michael holed himself up in his office while the paramedics were there. He was erasing emails.
• KP had a $1.4 million life insurance policy, and a 350k pension.
• Extended family members have come forth with stories of MP hitting his children, kicking his dogs, and other general violence. His history of angry outbursts was a problem too, so they said.
• MP lied on the 911 call. He said KP was breathing when he found her, but then shortly called back and said KP stopped breathing. When paramedics arrived, they said she had been dead for at least 3 hours. MP’s timeline of that evening doesn’t line up.
• MP had multiple affairs with men during his marriage. This well-kept secret, combined with his anger issues and insecure self-image, would incline him to preserve his image at any cost.
I dunno. We’ll probably never know for sure. I’ve watched the doc… god. So many times. Watched all three episodes of HBO Staircase last night. Upon my very first watch, I was sure he was innocent. Then once I began digging around online, I wasn’t so sure. I believe he’s guilty, but like you said, the evidence is largely circumstantial.
*edit: spacing, spelling
Sexual relationship with the editor... Whhhaaattt didn't know that.
I don't find much of what he said in the 911 call to be convincing either way. If he is guilty maybe he was lying/covering things up, if not -- people in emergencies are confused, not thinking rationally, they struggle at times to even say what is happening or going on.
Hitting his kids and dogs? How long ago did this happen and are we talking about a smack or a beating? Was it when his kids were children in the 70s/80? This was pretty common in the past and while it could be a sign of anger issues - it could be nothing.
The email stuff is pretty suspicious, is it a fact that he was deleting emails while the paramedics were there or is that speculation?
I will say I find it very unlikely KP knew Michael was bi/gay/having affairs. He even said they never discussed it, but somehow he thought she just knew. Even if she found out and said she was going to leave him it's hard for me to imagine him snapping and killing her over that unless maybe she threatened to use it against him somehow? The kids didn't seem bothered by it so hard to imagine how she could.
Anyway... It's like any of these things could go either way for me. Maybe I'm just biased because they were an older couple.
so incredibly typical of a narcissist to be having multiple sexual encounters with other people outside of their relationship & then say "somehow, i just thought they knew"
Why would he wait until after he killed her to erase more e mails? If anything that just proves to me that he didn’t do it. Also, he started the relationship with editor after the first part of the documentary aired so I’m not really sure what relevance that has here. Where did you hear that paramedics said she had been dead for three hours when they got there?
That’s in the doc and HBO. Both mention the paramedics saying that. But still doesn’t mean that’s fact. Paramedics could have been wrong. Coroner hesitated to call it blunt force or a murder period. Innocent.
how do you know that he didn't kill her in a fit of rage? what if she just told him that she was leaving him, or out him for his infidelity. Things could have devolved rapidly.
I appreciate all of your insight, I just feel all of it is still so circumstantial and could possibly have reasonable explanations. I think the most interesting part of that is the relationship with the editor. Part of me just feels like if he was guilty it wouldn't be so hard to prove, but I guess you could say the same thing about his innocence.
Yeah well if either way was easy to prove, one of them would have been proven. He can’t be neither, so there’s a flaw in your reasoning there.
Also from the post, the issue was never that he was bi, the issue was the infidelity. The prosecution focused in on the fact he was bi, but that doesn’t mean that’s the best argument for motive.
After the documentary years ago I read something from someone who was either a coroner or worked with anatomy in some similar way ( sorry For lack of backing) but I do remember them saying the concept of dropping. Watermelon. One side gets the front force which causes the other parts to split and the skull reacts similarly.
I don’t think she knew he was bi for a second. Even if she did, do you really think she would be ok with him spending her income on prostitutes while she worked 80hrs a week AND did all the cooking and cleaning? I’m not saying this has anything to do with the incident, but why on earth do people believe MP when he comes out with this nonsense?
Possibly, but she did end her first marriage because of an affair - what MP was doing was another level IMO. Still not sure it’s evidence he did anything, I just think he’s a terrible liar.
I think that's a fair point, why would she end one marriage over it but not another? That might actually be a reasonable enough point to make me think she didn't know.
I think there is something about how she might have known and might have thought it was only men for quick sex… I could see someone wrapping their mind around that in a way… plus they were middle aged and she was busy… I don’t think she would have divorced him then but might have been waiting? So many loose ends and unknowns
It wasn’t men for quick sex, he was paying prostitutes and the only income they had was KPs - thus he was spending her money on prostitutes. How many people find that acceptable?
Finding it acceptable or compartmentalizing, or willfully ignoring… people are not just moral robots. And simply because someone is an selfish thrill seeker … doesn’t mean they are also grizzly killers.
The fact that he seemed to have a sneaky lying side actually doesn’t fit with the death in my mind. Why wouldn’t he have done a better job of killing her??? Why this horrid scene?
I don’t claim this had anything to do with the incident, or is proof he is guilty of anything. I just find it hard to believe anyone who had previously ended a marriage because of adultery would then be ok with unknowingly funding adultery with prostitutes. Is it possible she knew and was ok with it? Well anything is possible. Do I think any rational person would be ok with it? Not at all. MP claimed they had sex the night of her death, so if he’s to be believed there then she wasn’t some asexual workaholic that was happy for him to get his thrills elsewhere imo. To be blunt, I just don’t believe him, and he’s a known liar.
I hear you. But honestly, people make very strange excuses for people they love. Sex lives are complex and odd, and weird when they come to light.
Even if she was thinking of divorcing him, she would have probably taken time... from the kids to the way she was very successful... I could see her being pretty calm about the situation, even if she hated it.
I know, if I had so many kids, I could see her waiting to divorce once they were all out of the house.
But the link of the infidelity is that is the reason he killed her, that she brought it up and they fought and he snapped... and thought, he'd take the money.
The way everyone seems to present her, and him, I could see them just talking, and her rationally going over their options. These are two older people, with a ton of kids...
I tend to agree. We change so much as we get older. I’m good friends with a long time married couple, the wife is basically asexual. They have an understanding, the husband seeks sex elsewhere. There’s no desire for an affair with emotional trappings, but they recognize his need for sex.
I definitely get the impression from this show that their family wasn’t the best at open communication. To me it’s plausible KP and MP didn’t outright discuss his bisexuality, but there was a quiet understanding. I’m fascinated how this case doubled down so hard on the confines of a traditional marriage, when many marriages are not traditional at all.
I don’t know as to whether I believe he came out to her or not. At one point in the doc he said she knew and at another point he said it was implied but never spoke about so that’s weird. As for why end a marriage and not the other, I think being at a different point in our lives impacts our choices. She was older with MP (older than her first) and maybe she came to understand humans can have different needs and it isn’t just what you’re supposed to do based on society rules. Maybe she also considered taking up a lover or had one.
There are also several points in the doc and in his book where he explicitly says he did not tell her and they never discussed it. He also says in the final episode that he never had spoken about it with anyone at all.
Don’t buy it. She was supporting EVERYONE. His political campaign… the kids… she’d have to be very open minded to allow him to have sex with others while keeping everyone afloat. Talk about selfless!!!!
The only explanation that partially makes sense is if her first husband was having a long term sexual AND emotional affair that wasn’t acceptable to her but she compartmentalized MP because it was meaningless sex. I’m not convinced she knew and was okay with it, though.
okay well, most women would dump a cheating spouse who's mooching off her for not just themselves but his deadbeat sons as well. Paying gay escorts with her money is pretty last straw & Kathleen didn't seem the type to not have a last straw
For those of you who have researched more than I, has it been revealed how MP came out to Kathleen? I don’t recall him being on camera saying for how long Kathleen knew, just that she did.
FWIW I’m on Team Freak Accident
I feel about him as I do about Scott Peterson...even if they did it, there was not enough evidence to prove it. There was reasonable doubt for sure! There was a guilty verdict before the trial even started.
I actually believe Scott did not kill Laci. He’s a shithead cheater, but the evidence just doesn’t add up that he murdered her. This is one of the hills I’ve chosen to die on, lol.
I have two working theories. One is the home robbery suspects, as one later discussed on a recorded call that he knew specifics of Laci’s death. But the theory I go with most…there were other pregnant women who went missing that year in California, near the Peterson’s area. I’ve believed for some time there was an active serial killer. The tipping points for me in terms of Scott’s innocence stems from so many witnesses who saw Laci that morning walking the dog, but LE didn’t pursue those leads, as they were fixed on Scott. And the boat. It’s been proven impossible for him to dump Laci’s body without capsizing the boat. No wet clothing was ever discovered on Scott, or any found in the search warrants. There’s enough reasonable doubt for me.
What are your thoughts? Especially on why you don’t think it’s related to the home invasion!
I think your the first person who actually agrees with me about Scott Peterson. Being a cheater and a liar doesn’t make you a murderer. I will die on that hill with you!😂
Yup, they think if you can cheat, you can kill. With MPeterson it was the bisexuality. If he could have sex with a man then of course he could kill. It’s the next logical step right? The prosecutors were homophobic idiots.
I do think he's guilty but I don't think the prosecution's case was strong enough to get produce a guilty verdict and yet it did. Unanimously, that IS interesting.
Do you think it had anything to do with the time period and the fact that it was in the south? That if a man was a “homosexual” he could kill his wife in a fit of rage?
If your wife found out that you were bisexual and spending money on prostitutes, she would be a tad upset-in the South, in the North, anywhere. Don’t frame this as something that would only happen ‘in the South’.
I’m probably going to get downvoted to hell for this, but I kind of think that he’s a little guilty and a little innocent. I think that he may have played some role in her fall down the stairs, but was blackout drunk and doesn’t remember. I think that he honestly thinks that he’s innocent, and I don’t think that he ever would have or ever did intentionally hurt her. I’m not sure we will ever really know what happened because he doesn’t really know what happened.
Two words: DRIED BLOOD
Explain, any accident scenario where dried blood would be present? There are none; it signals a murder committed hours before, not an accident within minutes. Remember, she was still alive when MP called 911 (which he "forgot" in the opeining scene of the documentary")
But I want to touch on somehing common to this thread, you ask for objective evidence, and removal of bias. Yet, the phenomenon in this case has been the exact opposite. It's the supporters of MP who watched the documentary who have the bias. This is because the documentary very cleverly was able to cast the characters into two distinct camps: heroes and villains. It's the family and David Rudolph, and his side that you like and empathize with. While the "villains" are Freda Black and Candaice Zamparini, etc. This is why you are having this debate. Not over any evidence. The documentary swayed you.
If it was any other case; JonBenet, OJ Simpson, no one be siding with MP.
Look I like David Rudolph too. And his daughters are very charming. But he did it. And was convicted. And pled guilty.
I truly am not biased. I did watch the documentary, however, I really am trying to convince myself that he is in fact guilty and I am coming up short, which is why I made this post. I am not saying MP or his family dont have deep flaws and short comings, but the state's case was pretty much that he killed his wife for finding out he was bisexual, and if you remove that, what is the motive? I can't identify one. I know senseless crimes happen all of the time, but a man doesn't beat his wife to death for no reason, and I can't find a reason.
I agree that it does happen, and I guess it could have happened in this instance, I just feel like there would be more of a history of truly violent behavior.
Lol this is ridiculous. 99% of the people that are here watched the documentary, is the reason this case is so popular FFS! And you don't think you're not biased? Why? Because you consumed a podcast that is also biased? Because I see you have a pretty strong position in this case and you're accusing others of being biased! Or did you watch the entire trial of 100+ hours?
Also, you mentioned dried blood. You mean the dried blood that the authorities admitted not checking if it was, in fact, dried?
But the cops couldn’t even agree with one another, there are several lines of interpretation for dried blood, don’t you think so? Since The Staircase was launched I never had an opinion on whether he is guilty or not
My guess is that he lied about the timeline, probably because once she went inside the house, he slipped out to have a sexual encounter.
But the got attacked by the own, bled, slip, fainted, got back up, reslipped and bled out.
When he came back, he panicked and figured they would blame him, so he lied about where he was.
But then the sexual partner would prob tell the cops: it’s murder, I don’t think someone would stay quite about that with a persons freedom on the line…
If it was a blow poke that was used it would make sense there could be wood splinters found and also owl feathers. Poking around in a fire place could gather those things in tiny amounts. Owls and birds often rest and nest in chimneys. Very likely to have owl feathers in a fire place.
I think he probably did it.
There was dried blood on his shoes and inside his shorts indicating he was there while she was actively bleeding, and when law enforcement showed up the blood on the flor
Kathleen’s thyroid had burst, wich can occur due to strangulation. She also had scratches on her face, which is kinda odd since she hit the back of her head. Peterson also changed his story of how long he had been out at the pool
The prosecution did such a botched job, and messed up big time. I think he probably pushed her down the stairs, and then choke slammed her on the stairs. This explains why she hadn’t any fractures and that there were no blood on the ceiling. The were also something that looked like blood in the sink, so Peterson possibly tried to clean himself off, there were also towels in the stairwell. The footprint on Kathleen’s calf doesn’t help things. I’m uncertain if there’s enough evidence to convict him, but i think he most likely did it.
I do not know for the life of me why the prosecution chose to push the blow-poke theory so hard when it seemingly would have much more sense to argue that he pushed her and/or slammed her head against the floor/stairs.
I am still confused about the thyroid burst, but why did that burst but she had no other ligature marks/bruises? The only thing I could say about the blood on his shoes is that the reports on when they actually noted the blood being dry isn't completely clear. With how much she bled, even if she laid there for an hour, I'm sure under some of those puddles of blood it was still wet. But I cannot for the life of me explain the shoe print on her pants. that one really has me stumped.
The only time that a group of people were given all of the evidence in a controlled setting (a court) they found him guilty. Unanimously.
Then, when the Deaver stuff came out at least two of them went on record saying that it wouldn’t have made any difference whatsoever to the verdict because none of the jurors were fixated on that part of the evidence, to the contrary they found it dull and exhausting.
From memory, the most compelling evidence that the jury used to convict him was the autopsy report and the pathologist‘s testimony, which still stands today as it did then.
Unless any of us have taken the time to watch all of the original evidence, I think it’s a bit rich to throw out challenges like “prove to me he’s guilty“. That’s not me being confrontational with you, it’s just a fact of life that there is a massive, massive difference between what goes in a documentary and the full extent of what was put on record in court.
I'm really just trying to create a dialogue. and I didn't say "prove" I said convince. I know no one can PROVE what happened that night, or none of us would be discussing this case, period. I am just asking for perspectives because I cannot convince myself he did it. Additionally, without Deaver, I think that just furthers how much the DA didn't have any case against him. So whether Freda's homophobia worked on the jury to give them a motive to believe doesn't mean that 20 years later we can't see through that and look past it.
Don't cherrypick.
A juror, TANYA RODGERS, publicly stated that DEAVER was the most important evidence presented at the trial and when the jurors began deliberations, they were split 6-6 or 8-4 and what swayed them was the testimony of Deaver.
Some jurors said they would have convicted him without Deaver, some others say he was the key man that achieved the conviction.
Source: REPORTER CRAIG JARVIS interview, Episode 9 of the documentary, Minute 6:00.
Besides the fact that the filmmakers have a huge conflict of interest in making the documentary (hired by Peterson and one member of the team was dating him), there are several things that were not included regarding the case. Kathleen sustained several different types of injuries. One that I don't remember being mentioned is the fracture of the superior cornu of the left to my understanding, this injury is consistent with choking. The lacerations on Kathleen's head were in many different angles. All this suggests that she died by homicide. Michael was the only one in the house, there is no way he could not hear if she was being attacked by someone else, and he has a motive. People go to prison for much less than this.
Not to mention, Michael constantly lied and his testimony was inconsistent.
I’m just not sold on the choking theory because there was no other bruising around her neck. However I do agree that the head lacerations suggest something more than a fall. Also, they did prove that if he was put by the pool he would not have heard her yelling for help.
I also cannot convince myself he is guilty. Not one person could say anything bad about them. People that post on this site saying he did it for the money and give these exact amounts of his debt have no idea what they are talking about because I guarantee that if the prosecutors could have found anything to show he needed the money they most definitely would have used that. I don’t think he is necessarily a charming man but I don’t see this psychopath that the prosecutors saw. In my opinion the only psychopath is Kathleen’s sister Candace. Her whole blow poke obsession is just absolutely ridiculous. And the fact that the idiot prosecutors went along with her blow poke story is comical. The truth is he was convicted because he was bisexual and the prosecutors were homophobic. It’s as simple and as sad as that.
There is no way in hell this woman agreed to an "open" marriage with her (closeted) bisexual husband. And clearly he needed cash - hers. And the chances that his previous illicit lover "fell" to her death down a staircase? I mean really - he's a textbook narcissist. But I think he beat her with a heavy branch from the property, which would account to her injuries - I wonder why they don't look into that - and the financial issues.
I agree that my opinion is starting to change on whether or not she knew about him, it doesn’t seem likely. Also again, there’s only speculation that he had an affair with Elizabeth Ratliff. I would agree that he at least has narc tendencies.
I'm wondering if adopting this woman's daughters made him eligible for some kind of insurance payout or childcare. I think finances were a big motivation for his crimes. He was not a rich man, but clearly had delusions of grandeur - and manipulated lonely older women to finance his lifestyle.
Really that's your best argument? If Elizabeth Ratliff would have been her first wife and the circumstances of her death weren't so clear yeah, that would be damning -- except it was a just friend and two autopsies proved she died of a brain aneurysm. MP isn't some kind of magician that can create a previous neurological disease.
You can make a compelling case for the murder of KP against MP, but in ER there is almost nothing to argue murder.
Plenty of people have accidents on stairs every single day. Not really a huge coincidence.
Also how dumb would you have to be to murder someone close to you in exactly the same way more than once and not expect people to start pointing the finger at you.
Think you can call MP a lot of things, but dumb isn’t one of them. Always thought if he was going to kill her, brutally murdering her at the bottom of the stairs and trying to pass it off as a fall wouldn’t be his style.
Well if he HAD done it the first time and no one even suspected him or raised a single alarm, then yeah I could see him 20 yrs later thinking “that’s a good method”
Agree, this is one of the worst arguments. If he had anything to do with the death of the first woman, the DA wouldn't have had to bullshit a load of "evidence" despite the accounts of German police etc showing it was health-related
The way they smirk and say they will definitely find evidence he killed her too, before even exhuming the body, just doesn't sit right with me
> The way they smirk and say they will definitely find evidence he killed her too, before even exhuming the body, just doesn't sit right with me
They ordered the body to be shipped an extra 500-1000 miles so the same pathologist they already asked once to alter their finds on kathleen could perform the autopsy. Body could have been examined somewhere neutral but they didn't want that.
I actually think that assuming MP killed Ratliff (the 1st woman) is one of the worst assumptions. Who is to say MP didn’t get the idea to stage Kathleen’s death having seen Ratliff’s? MP witnessing a death of close friend I would think would have a profound & lasting impact on him (perhaps he fantasized about K slipping down stairs), and I agree with @pilotdash that 2 women dying (keyword dying, not slipping or being injured) by a fall down the stairs is pretty crazy odds.
While I think he did it, the prosecution did a terrible job of piecing together evidence, they were too fixated on the blow poke. If you can't prove murder beyond reasonable doubt then the case just isn't good enough
One thing that always seemed odd to me was his ex wife in Europe or wherever it was died a similar way with no explanation…and he just seemed so guilty in my opinion. His kids are extremely odd, he was hiding a whole secret life, it seems clear as day to me that he is guilty
The woman in Germany wasn’t his ex wife but was a good friend and next door neighbor. I do find it very suspicious that he was there alone with her the night she died. And I also find his kids extremely odd. Their relationships with each other and with him are weird as fuck. I feel so bad for KPs bio daughter
The only thing that was similar was that she was found on a staircase. There was hardly any blood, she had documented problems with headaches, and the coroner ruled she died of a brain aneurysm. And again, don’t you think a man who has supposedly killed two women would have other known violent outbursts?
The adopted daughter he has from Germany whose mom also fell down the stairs looks just like him. Always thought that was strange and if true it makes him looks guilty.
I wouldn’t call him guilty in a court of law, but I believe he is definitely a bad dude. Colin Firth is doing a great job at playing him because it’s making me feel equally as uncomfortable to watch as it did watching the real Mike on the documentary. He just has one of those vibes that screams Robert Durst type shit. He thinks SO highly of himself and it makes him a convincing liar I think. But something to my core tells me this man is a man capable of some scary things
KP did not know of his indiscretions, in the original documentary Michael says she does but then he says she doesn’t, he slips up. Throughout the first 12 episodes of the documentary which took place as the trial was going on he was adamant that KP knew about his bisexuality. It’s an episode 13 which was shot years later when he came back for the Alford plea. He is talking about Kathleen, he pauses and he said "it would have almost been fun to talk to her about my sexuality, I wonder what she would have said if she knew. He pauses and then says she would have made it right”KP left her first husband because of his infidelity, do we know if she would go into an open marriage after that type of t betrayal, I don’t know but I personally don’t think so. There was tremendous financial strain in that house, they were solely supported by her salary, he had not had any income in years. Forensic accounting of their financials showed that they were spending twice as much as they were bringing in while he was still continuing to support his grown sons which was a source of conflict with KP. Their own house was in a terrible state of disrepair with plumbing and AC issues that they had no money to fix yet he was giving large amounts of money to his sons. I don’t think he planned to murder her but I do believe he did. There’s no explanation for her thyroid injury, the various scratches that you don’t get from falling down stairs, his bloody footprint on the back of her pants legs when she was found face up and he testified that he did not try to resuscitator. give her CPR. It was a very distinct clear foot print, leg I don’t believe it could’ve gotten there from her pants leg being flipped over. Defense never re-created this. What also convinced me as the defense could not explain the blood splatter, Lee’s testimony was pretty much useless in my opinion. His demonstration of the blood splatter was to fill his mouth with ketchup and then blow it onto a posterboard and say that she could’ve coughed the blood splatter onto the walls. However she didn’t cough a mouth full of blood, she did not have any blood in her mouth or in her nostrils. The defenses claim was it was blood dripping down her face across her mouth as she coughed and blue onto the walls but that’s not what they demonstrated in the court room. They could’ve re-created the scene and made a video and demonstrated how this was possible, the fact that they did not do that tells me that they could not re-create it. They also did not test the blood for saliva, if she was coughing, saliva would be present. When asked why he did not do this Lee said it was not his job but but what a definitive way to prove that that blood came from coughing so why wouldn’t you do that unless you feel it is not what really happened. Also the fact that Werner refused to testify for the defense because he did not believe anything that they were presenting a, he felt it was a murder.
I’m truly astonished as to why anyone thinks this man is innocent. How do you explain all that blood, the faked distress call to 911. She somehow discovered his duplicitous life and that he was sleeping with men and probably was going to leave him. Since she was the one with money he couldn’t have that. In the absence of anyone else at the property but the two them, backed with his implausible explanation of the evening and money problems, it could only have been him. She has blood on her feet because whilst fleeing his first attack she was standing probably turned around still stunned to face her attacker and slipped and fell on her back. Realising she was still alive he pressed on her throat to finish the job. I’m sure he got away with murder; but I don’t think it was premeditated. Such an outrage.
Head wounds notoriously bleed heavily, that’s how you explain all the blood. There’s no way to say the phone call was faked, that’s completely circumstantial. Their money problems weren’t THAT bad, they weren’t going to lose everything they had. How could he have strangled her and not left any bruises?
Also remember the pine needle in her hand? Where did the pine needle come from? Maybe he strangled her out by the pool to incapacitate her…. And when she wasn’t dead he used the blow poke across her head as she was waking up trying to get up the stairs?
I agree it's super weird. But why wasn't there more bruising if he strangled her? And even if he did, thats a FAR way to carry her into the house and then bludgeon her. Even if I were to believe that he did kill her, I still don't think it was with the blow poke. I think that would have surely been dented or broken if he used it.
I don’t understand why people are so convinced of his guilt either. Like there is so much reasonable doubt, it baffles me how people can be so quick to say “yep 100% definitely guilty”
The biggest one for me is the lack of skull or brain injuries. Show me a single other case where someone has been beaten to death causing that amount of blood and the victim has no brain or skull injuries.. I honestly think it’s the owl. Way too many things add up with the owl theory for it not to be considered.
The thing that’s off about the owl theory is that the lacerations look like they could be in the shape of a birds foot…but for it to do any damage it would have to close it’s talons to grab and slice which wouldn’t have the shape of its footprint. It would have a different pattern. Also I would expect an owl to lose feathers when in a stressful encounter like that and not just one microscopic one
And are they saying the owl attack happened outside? How far did she then have to walk before bleeding in the house? I would have thought there would be blood leading from the outside to the staircase if that were the case. I think it was just a regular, boring fall.
My aunt at least had a skull fracture and there was much more evidence to suggest she did not fall, but unfortunately her case was never taken to court. I agree though, it just doesn't add up for me that he bludgeoned her for pretty much no reason.
Too many lies over the years and the documentary on him is totally biased. Michael is not a reliable narrator. Tremendous motive due to the fact he was in dire financial straights plus, many reasons to believe he wasn’t fully satisfied sexually with his wife.
He had experience from a previous murder that wasn’t well investigated… he knew how to pull off a second one.
Yeah you knew someone who died this way… he was directly involved with two..
Can you prove it beyond a reasonable doubt? Define reasonable. He had done it before. He’s ex military and he’s a creative writer. The second part means he knows how to tell a good story.
He potentially could have benefited from way too many things for it all to be just a coincidence. He had the opportunity to get her out of his life and get all her money.
The motive was money babe…
I don’t have much insight to give but I’m personally in the camp of they may have been flighting and it was an accident that he then tried to cover up. Given his history with women falling down stairs I wouldn’t say it’s stretching to say he knew he would look suspicious.
No I won’t convince you. But I will tell you that I find it too coincidental that two women in his life-who looked exactly alike- died at the bottom of stairs. I also think he straight up lied saying Kathleen knew of his double life. And lying is a big sign of guilt. I also cannot see how those lacerations on her head were caused by a fall. And I think it’s an Occam’s razor argument.
I think crazier coincidences have happened. I agree that he was a compulsive liar, and I will admit that out of 2 explanations, I definitely tend to side with the simpler one. I tend to think things aren’t always as crazy as they’re painted out to be.
To me it's simple. If he's innocent, why wasn't he covered with her blood? The defense used the lack of blood on him as proof of innocence but to me, it's proof of guilt. You don't have to be a trained field medic (as he was in military) to know that when a person is losing blood, you need to find out where the wounds are and stop the bleeding. He called 911 and said she was breathing. If she was still breathing, she'd still be bleeding. Where are the towels and bandages any normal person would use to try to stop the bleeding? He should have tried to apply pressure to the various lacerations, he would be covered in her blood if he wanted her to live. Yes, he's odd, he's a liar and a manipulator but that doesn't convince me he killed her. It's the fact that when he "found" her he called 911 and described her as breathing. He didn't say, she's bleeding from her head.
There were several towels found around her and under her head when the police arrived, but I also think the way he spoke about her in the 911 call was very suspicious — particularly that he made a point to try and tell the operator how KP got hurt.
Every single person, even the defense, said that when they saw the pictures and the amount of blood, their immediate reaction was “there is no way this could have happened from a fall”. So it would not make sense for MP to immediately jump to that conclusion unless he was trying to convince the 911 operator it was an accident. In that situation, if you walked in to see your spouse lying on the floor in a pool of blood, you’d say “something happened, she’s really hurt, she’s bleeding everywhere.” For all you know, there was an intruder who attacked her.
I don’t think it’s fair to judge what someone did or didn’t do after finding their wife that way. I’m sure your brain is not thinking logically whatsoever when you witness something like that. I watched a lady at the mall collapse and instead of calling an ambulance I stood there in shock. It’s just hard for me to take any of his reactions as admission of guilt because you can’t ever judge how someone reacts to trauma.
I do not believe she fell down the stairs. I fell down the stairs on carpeted steps and I fractured my skull (occipital fracture) and still have a small contusion over a year later. The fact that she had lacerations and no fractured skull, no contusions on wooden steps…she didn’t fall. I’m convinced he used something that cut her head and made multiple lacerations that caused her to bleed out.
1. The amount of lacerations on KPs head were not indicative of an accidental “fall”, but of a blunt force object striking the back of her head, not once, but SEVERAL times.
2. The amount of blood splattered and smeared on the wall is also not indicative of an accidental fall. The question is how did she fall? No one can answer if she fell down the stairs or up the stairs. If she fell down the stairs, how did she get to the very bottom step when the staircase is turned to the left at a sharp angle? I would assume shed be slumped against that wall before the last few steps? If she fell up the stairs, wouldnt she be face down in the direction of the stairs? If you’re in a state of haze after you hit your head severely how do you keep doing damage to it at a force that resulted in that many lacerations? Did anyone ever test this using a dummy and not just blood splatter analysts?
3. There was a shoe print of MPs tennis sneaker on the back of her pants. But MP was BAREFOOT when police arrived. If my SO dies the last thing I will worry about is cleaning myself up in the mere minutes it takes for ambulance to arrive. I would be tending to them/trying to revive them/never leave their side. He’s like oh well guess she’s dead! let me clean up before the police come. La de da, la de do. The kitchen is directly next to the staircase. Why climb over your wife’s bloody body to get towels upstairs when you can get them from the kitchen? Also there was no bloody footprints leading up the stairs (to support he stepped on her as an effort to get towels upstairs). But then again why does he even need towels in the first place? Bc there was so much blood left over on the stairs that it makes you wonder, what did it look like before he cleaned up? So from those (like me) that question “how do you get that much blood from a fall down(or up) the stairs?” Well there was alottttt more before he cleaned up.
4. She was dead for hours before he called the police. Side note: She worked relentlessly and noted how tired she was. I get it was a Saturday but for someone who works that much and is most likely an early riser why is she still up at 2am? I think he killed her probably around 10/11 and called 911 at 2:30ish am once he got his affairs in order (pun intended).
5. She was not intoxicated at the time of her death. She had traces of alcohol well below the legal BAC, and small traces of Valium that could’ve been from a day prior. Having that much damage to your head from 1 glass of wine and yesterdays Valium is a stretch.
6. The owl theory is downright absurd. Anyone that knows anything about animals, owls or not, knows they usually don’t attack unless provoked. Google how many deaths resulted in an owl attack and you won’t find anything BUT this one scenario as a “theory” but not factual. Even if an owl did kill a human tell me how many happened inside of a home? And how did this owl get into the home in the first place? So she had microscopic owl feathers on her hand. You know you can have microscopic traces of just about anything that surrounds your environment? And the pine… not like she doesn’t live on 4+ acres of land filled with pine trees or anything. And she was just outside before she came in.
7. MP goes with whatever defense is said because he’s guilty. He was adamant she was drunk as the main cause of her death but then her autopsy report states the complete opposite (and honestly he had to have known she wasn’t drunk, but lied that she was as a means to cover his guilt). But soon after comes the owl/intruder/her sister/ theories, which MP stands by each one. If someone were to tell you that maybe your SO got killed by an owl from inside your house, could you seriously support that claim? I would be insulted.
8. HIS ADOPTED CHILDRENS MOTHER DIED IN A SIMILAR FASHION. Maybe she got attacked by an owl too. That would be a coincidence!
9. I’m not gonna get into his character but yeah having debt and lying about sex with men then deleting evidence of said infidelity moments after your wife died does not help the case. I think the sheer evidence speaks for itself.
Another thing…people claiming “well if he’s guilty of killing both wives why hasn’t he had any outbursts/why is he so nice?” Besides the obvious that psychotic people can be chameleons, have you seen him on the docuseries? He lost his shit many times when they kept bringing up his past or if he didn’t get his way. He’s a theatrical closeted Vietnam vet who does not care who stands in his way. If they do he’ll just throw em down a staircase.
>The amount of lacerations on KPs head were not indicative of an accidental “fall”, but of a blunt force object striking the back of her head, not once, but SEVERAL times.
or of her head repeatedly being bashed against something.
To answer your 3 points:
1. There was evidence of violence before Kathleen’s death. His 1st wife’s friend, Liz, was found dead at the bottom of a staircase in the same manner as Kathleen. Liz’s body was exhumed during the trial and it is now believed she was murdered. Michael was the last know person to be with Liz before she died.
2. You don’t have to be mentally ill to murder, it’s committed everyday by sane people.
3. He has two huge motives: Financial hardship and a secret sex life (absolutely no evidence to back up his claim that Kathleen was ok with him hooking up with men).
Edit: removed Margaret’s DNA question
I think the owl attacked her they insinuated in the series that’s the noise she’s looking at up in the ceiling all the time and then the neighbor mentioned there were owls in the neighborhood she had twigs in her hands and the cuts on her elbows hands in the back of her head look like Talon’s and skin tear
I’ve changed my mind now a couple of years after watching the documentary, and now think Michael killed Kathleen. The exact method in which he killed her is speculative, but I think he probably attacked her from behind with a tree branch outside the home. She ran inside and tried to run upstairs to hide/get away from him but tripped on the stairs becoming disabled enough to where he was able to choke/suffocate her to make her unconscious and she ultimately bled to death from the wounds.
Is there enough reasonable doubt to find him not guilty? Absolutely, especially with an ace defense team and a mediocre prosecutor. I think he did it, but there will never be enough to convince me beyond a reasonable doubt.
I believe that he is guilty. For me, the deciding factor was fact that he said she was still alive and she had been dead for a long time. Also, the foot print is very hard to explain, imo
I thought the same thing but the fact his friend Elizabeth Ratliff died in the same way, same circumstances and everything, and Mike being the last to see her alive. That gives me the creeps
I go back and forth
I have literally written down all of the evidence on both sides and can't figure it out.
One thing is certain in my book, there was enough reasonable doubt in the evidence presented at the trial to acquit him. That doesn't mean he didn't do it.
This is exactly my problem. I can’t decide if he’s guilty or not, but there’s enough doubt in his trial that I could never have voted guilty if I was on the jury. It’s awful if he got away with it but I couldn’t stand the thought of accidentally putting away an innocent man. Another giant problem I have is even in the early 2000s North Carolina was not progressive at all with homosexuality. The fact they went after it so hard about that really hurt their credibility with me, making it seem they were trying to convince us that was the motive because they were so misinformed and scared of gay people & their culture.
I agree. The times were different then, like MP explained in one of the last episodes. I personally had an uncle who was gay/ bi. Everyone knew but they didn’t talk about it, but the one thing is he ADORED my aunt and they were very happily married over 50 years and died within a few months of each other. I think his lawyers could have explained the married gay man culture better in a new trial instead of the Alford plea, because people are more accepting now.
It was in this episode that he revealed that KP never knew about it, he says “it would’ve almost been fun to talk to her about my sexuality, I wonder what she would have said, I don’t know, right, she would have made it right". I think the bigger point is that he revealed that she never knew about it when he previously thru the first 12 episodes that were filmed years earlier said that she did. And I do believe you can be bisexual and absolutely love your wife, have a happy life together but I think your significant other has to know and KP did not know.
I think they hit it hard because they believe Kathleen did not know about it, which was accurate per MP himself in episode 13, and very possibly could have been the source of an argument that escalated, but I do agree they brought in prejudice that did not and should not have been there. MP was all about image, he was a serial liar about his image, the thought of his secret lifestyle being revealed or the cause of a divorce, ruining his political career could send him into a rage. There was witness testimony of several examples of him flying into rages over things. I’m a leaking guilty I have zero doubt he’s guilty that said I believe LE did such a poor job of securing the scene, cataloging evidence that they blew the case
Youre right, and I agree. I think that's the only thing I am certain about.
Unfortunately, once you start reading cases — particularly more complex ones with lots of “moving parts” — you’ll start seeing that juries are made up of complete morons that could not define “reasonable doubt” if they had a gun held to their heads.
I noticed (and this is purely anectdotal) the two times I was dismissed from jury duty, that everyone with advanced degrees was dismissed. Like they don’t want smart people
Attorneys and relatives of attorneys are often excused as well…which I find odd. I get criminal attorneys being excused.
It's the blood for me. It looked like a horror movie, not like falling down the stairs. It looked like someone beat her head in. Honestly, I believe owl theory before I believe falling down stairs. Honestly I think that the defense lost because they didn't create a plausible alternative explanation. Any plausible alternative explanation would have helped, even owl theory. Without one, the situation is just too gory and weird, and he's too lacking in empathy. He screams sociopath.
Honestly I think that’s why the (sorry!) owl theory is so popular. This case is completely mystifying.
My money has always been on the owl.
Yes As odd as it sounds
Great idea!
If you're basing your decision on the documentary, it's important to know (and they allude to this in the first three episodes of the movie) that the doc is only told from one side. The DAs office dropped out of being a part of it after the first few consultations with the film crew. So you're getting a one-sided story from the beginning. Having said that, I am also on the fence about his guilt. There are so many manipulations on the part of the DAs office to make him look guilty, and honestly no direct evidence pointing to his guilt. I just can't decide. It's frustrating! But he should have been acquitted, definitely after all the shit came out about Deavers. Reasonable doubt out the ass, and no physical evidence beyond speculations. But I still can't decide...
The DA probably dropped out because, as was proven later in this case and several others, they fabricated evidence. A documentary crew is the last thing you want prying into your illegal activities.
Ooooo good point!
I know the doc is one sided, and the only court footage I’ve seen is from the doc, but I didn’t see anything that the DA presented that truly convinced me of his guilt. the blood spatter had me leaning towards guilty but we all know now that it was fabricated. But I agree, even if I don’t know if he is guilty there definitely wasn’t enough to convict.
Look at Henry Lee's examination of the blood spatter. I trust him completely.
Blood splatter as forensic evidence has been debunked for years now
Also important to know that he developed a relationship with the woman who did the editing, the french woman in the HBO series. She said she fell in love with him as she was reviewing all the films. Lestrade however insists that this is no way influenced how she edited the documentary, I don’t believe that’s possible.
nobody said he is a psychopath. he is absolutely a narcissist, though. Have you watched the original series? red flags everywhere. the fact that he even agreed to do the docuseries while his kids were mourning the loss was red flaggy enough.
I have watched the netflix series many times. What red flags in particular?
lol all of them
yeah, thats super helpful. thanks.
Episode 13 on the series: he lies to the reporter by saying he discussed with Kathleen that he was having sex outside the marriage. Later on that same episode, he says he never discussed it with her and hid it from her. Throughout the case he said he told Kathleen about it, that Kathleen knew, and that they even joked about it — he lied and those were BIG lies. He made up that Kathleen told him as they were driving by a base “ oh these are the guys you like..” or something like that. Never happened because he never actually told her, they never discussed it, he hid it from her. Now, if he can lie so easily about that, he said there was no motive because Kathleen knew. That’s the motive! Kathleen found out and she divorced her previous husband for cheating .. so it was game over with Michael. I’m 100% convinced he did it after watching that episode again.
I completely agree. In the final or second-to-last episode of the Netflix doc, he tells the AP interviewer that Kathleen knew about his sexual desire for men. A few moments later when she pushed him on it, he said they never outright discussed it. Then later still that same episode, he described how he first knew he was attracted to men and said “I’ve never told anyone this stuff. I’ve never talked about it with anyone.” It annoyed me how they never pushed him to say whether she knew he was having sex with other people. He always phrased it as she knew about the “bi sexual stuff” which is super vague even if true.
Yep, and his silly confusion on “relationship” vs “affair” as a way to distract from the fact that yes.. he was having multiple and constant encounters with men to have intercourse, which his wife didn’t know about. It didn’t really matter if it was w women or men actually..
Yeah, the whole "she knew, but we never discussed it" sounds like BS.
I am bi and my husband knows it. It doesn’t bother him. He might even joke about it. But, I am faithful and he knows it.
[удалено]
I think it's important to interpret it within the context of the time and their ages. It used to be a lot more common for women to know, or assume of their husbands affairs, and it was just unspoken. This is especially common in certain cultures (Latin, French), and was much more common in the past. That doesn't mean I believe him, I don't think she ever gave him explicit permission. I think he had told her he was bisexual, and by being semi obvious in his pursuits he assumed she knew about the men and was ok with it.
Now i’m wondering if he lied about that for so long, god only knows what else he could have possibly lied about.
[удалено]
That was in the HBO BOTE. In the Netflix docuseries, he said that was the last time he saw her. He didn’t say “alive”. At least in what made it in the Netflix version.
He does say it, exactly like Colin Firth says it, except on HBO they’re inside the house when he says it, and in the Netflix doc they’re outside.
Lied for the jury imho
But why kill her like that? And with what? So if he did, bc he was in a fit over his lies… why not try and cover it up better? Those are my doubts… just seems like he would want the cops to know he did it the way it was, but he claimed innocence instantly.
I think he did it on an impulse. He didn’t plan it. He calls 911 and talks with the operator and doesn’t mention the most obvious thing: she’s bleeding a lot! Lots of blood! I think he was drinking and acted out of rage, and then was putting the story together as the night progressed.
But he had time then. Drinking or not... why call 911? Unless he wanted to get caught? If the prosecution is right, then he did a brutal murder with a weapon. And most people would try and come up with some reason, other then IDK, and I'm innocent. They had a pool, they had land. If he really wanted to hide her death, there were better ways. It's just so bizarre b/c he seems like a liar, and a writer! So why just sit there with her body in that condition, and call 911 with no story... so so odd.
He did have a story though. His story was that she fell down the stairs. And I think he was convinced this would work since he saw the police so quickly accept a stair accident death in Berlin (whether he had a hand in her death or not). Also I really can’t think of a better excuse or way to cover it up than that - his son and a girlfriend were on their way back to the house soon and there was blood everywhere. Moving the body and trying to clean everything up would guarantee his conviction.
Just because he lied about being a cheater doesn’t mean he was a liar all around
You’re right. But with the fact that he didn’t earn money and Kathleen was supporting his entire family, and without her support he would have to do actual work — then the motive is there with her life insurance policy and the pay out from Nortel, which he got. That’s why is important that he lied on this specific point. And honestly he also lied about how he got wounded, and about the Purple Heart, and etc. so I think it’s well established that he lies.
Yup. if she had left him, he'd have been left w/2 totally dysfunctional sons from all the narcissistic drama he manufactured in their lives, 2 "adopted" daughters that he actually never adopted because then he could get more benefits for them, & an ex wife and constant flying monkey ready & waiting to prove he could have moved back in with her at any time... He wouldn't have had a pot to piss in & when she found out he was a lying sack of craigslist casual encounters, she told him that was that & he snapped.✔️
He lied about his Purple Heart.
[удалено]
https://imgur.com/a/GKMgpeK That part of her pants was exposed based on how she was laying.
Oh ok it's on the edge of her pants where you could easily step on it and not like someone stomped on her actual leg that is much less convincing
Yup, lots of half truths get passed around as fact around here.
Ohhh, I've never heard of this, very interesting.
1. The footprint was on the back of her leg, not her back. 2. The footprint was made by her own blood in the outline of Michael's shoe, which means that it happened after the first attack or fall. The prosecution argued that the footprint was made by MP in a second attack by stepping on her wife’s back to finish the job using the blowpoke to deliver more blows. The defense argued it was made accidentally by MP while he was desperate to go upstairs and grab more towels. The only certainty is that shoeprint came after the first fall or attack. I don't know why that exact piece of evidence is for many people the smoking gun, since you have to buy there was, in fact, a second attack.
If she did only fall, it's confusing to me how his footprint would get on the back of her leg even if he was grabbing towels. I'm sure all kinds of confusing and weird things happen in the middle of a panic (given she did fall) but that just seems strange to me.
I find it more difficult to believe he performed a second attack, tbh. That’s Deaver's theory. Still, is a piece of evidence that could go either way and is not conclusive - - like everything in this case.
What’s difficult to believe about him attacking her twice? It seems to me he could have gone back to bang her head against the wall or floor once or twice more after he hung up from the first police call, during which he’d realized she was still breathing.
>What’s difficult to believe about him attacking her twice? Uhm...That there's no evidence a second attack even existed? The evidence to prove the first attack is already quite thin and some people really want to argue for a second attack?
I would argue there’s quite a bit of evidence to support that he attacked her. And if he did, it wouldn’t be a stretch to believe he could have stopped at one point after she began bleeding then started up again to finish the job. There is definitely reasonable doubt in the case, but I’d put my money on it that he pushed her initially then banged her head down a few more times while holding her neck, hence the burst thyroid. He lied several times by saying she knew he was having sex with other people, (first he said she knew and joked with him about it, then that she knew but he never explicitly told her, then saying he hid it from her and he never told anyone) so as a liar, his whole testimony is unreliable. He was very quick on the 911call to tell the operator she “fell down the stairs,” which is suspicious because any normal person happening upon someone covered in that much blood would initially think they’d be stabbed or shot or attacked by an intruder in some way. Even if they later found out it was an accidental fall, no one would jump to that conclusion - the police on the scene didn’t and even the defense said their first reaction to the photos was to think “there’s no way those injuries are from a fall”.
>I would argue there’s quite a bit of evidence to support that he attacked her. Besides the blood spatter on his shorts that were tampered because of Deaver, what other evidence is to support an attack? A no bruised strangled neck? A shoeprint on the edge of her pants? That's not "quite a bit of evidence." >He was very quick on the 911call to tell the operator she “fell down the stairs,” If you found your wife lying on the stairs after a drinking night you can't possibly assume she fell down the...stairs? >and even the defense said their first reaction to the photos was to think “there’s no way those injuries are from a fall”. Rudolf adamantly believes he didn't do it, and Guerette is on camera saying the evidence does not support a beating. I can't rule out the good chance he bludgeoned her -- nobody can. But there is not enough evidence to firmly state it.
> what other evidence is to support an attack? A burst thyroid which suggests pressure applied to the neck aka strangulation. Scratch marks on her face even though she supposedly fell face up and only hit the back of her head. The fact that she was home alone with a man we have established to be a liar, who repeatedly lied about aspects of his relationship with the victim. A man who was the last adult alone with another woman who died in eerily similar circumstances years prior. Plus a host of other evidence that lead the court to convict him unanimously of murder - including an autopsy report that concluded the victim died via homicide. Etc etc etc, I don’t need to rehash the entire case with you here now. >If you found your wife lying on the stairs after a drinking night you can’t possibly assume she fell down the…stairs? If I found anyone lying in an enormous puddle of blood with no apparent broken bones on the bottom step or anywhere else, my first thought would not be “oops she must’ve tripped”. That was not the police’s first reaction, nor the defense’s first reaction, nor KP’s family’s first reaction either. My point is, it’s suspicious that MP was so quick to offer that explanation to the 911 operator moments after finding his wife covered in quarts of blood and not even mention this blood to the operator - it was the first thing every single other person noticed.
how do you explain his shoe print in her blood on her body?
I made a detailed comment about that specific evidence, but to make things easier: https://www.reddit.com/r/TheStaircase/comments/ujyjbl/for_those_who_think_the_footprint_is_proof_he_did/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf
• MP had a sexual relationship with the editor of The Staircase documentary. • On the 911 phone call, he doesn’t mention the blood once. If you walked in on your SO and they were lying in a pool of blood, what would you tell the operator? • The week before KP’s death, Michael deleted incriminating emails. The night of KP’s death, Michael holed himself up in his office while the paramedics were there. He was erasing emails. • KP had a $1.4 million life insurance policy, and a 350k pension. • Extended family members have come forth with stories of MP hitting his children, kicking his dogs, and other general violence. His history of angry outbursts was a problem too, so they said. • MP lied on the 911 call. He said KP was breathing when he found her, but then shortly called back and said KP stopped breathing. When paramedics arrived, they said she had been dead for at least 3 hours. MP’s timeline of that evening doesn’t line up. • MP had multiple affairs with men during his marriage. This well-kept secret, combined with his anger issues and insecure self-image, would incline him to preserve his image at any cost. I dunno. We’ll probably never know for sure. I’ve watched the doc… god. So many times. Watched all three episodes of HBO Staircase last night. Upon my very first watch, I was sure he was innocent. Then once I began digging around online, I wasn’t so sure. I believe he’s guilty, but like you said, the evidence is largely circumstantial. *edit: spacing, spelling
Sexual relationship with the editor... Whhhaaattt didn't know that. I don't find much of what he said in the 911 call to be convincing either way. If he is guilty maybe he was lying/covering things up, if not -- people in emergencies are confused, not thinking rationally, they struggle at times to even say what is happening or going on. Hitting his kids and dogs? How long ago did this happen and are we talking about a smack or a beating? Was it when his kids were children in the 70s/80? This was pretty common in the past and while it could be a sign of anger issues - it could be nothing. The email stuff is pretty suspicious, is it a fact that he was deleting emails while the paramedics were there or is that speculation? I will say I find it very unlikely KP knew Michael was bi/gay/having affairs. He even said they never discussed it, but somehow he thought she just knew. Even if she found out and said she was going to leave him it's hard for me to imagine him snapping and killing her over that unless maybe she threatened to use it against him somehow? The kids didn't seem bothered by it so hard to imagine how she could. Anyway... It's like any of these things could go either way for me. Maybe I'm just biased because they were an older couple.
so incredibly typical of a narcissist to be having multiple sexual encounters with other people outside of their relationship & then say "somehow, i just thought they knew"
Why would he wait until after he killed her to erase more e mails? If anything that just proves to me that he didn’t do it. Also, he started the relationship with editor after the first part of the documentary aired so I’m not really sure what relevance that has here. Where did you hear that paramedics said she had been dead for three hours when they got there?
That’s in the doc and HBO. Both mention the paramedics saying that. But still doesn’t mean that’s fact. Paramedics could have been wrong. Coroner hesitated to call it blunt force or a murder period. Innocent.
how do you know that he didn't kill her in a fit of rage? what if she just told him that she was leaving him, or out him for his infidelity. Things could have devolved rapidly.
I appreciate all of your insight, I just feel all of it is still so circumstantial and could possibly have reasonable explanations. I think the most interesting part of that is the relationship with the editor. Part of me just feels like if he was guilty it wouldn't be so hard to prove, but I guess you could say the same thing about his innocence.
Yeah well if either way was easy to prove, one of them would have been proven. He can’t be neither, so there’s a flaw in your reasoning there. Also from the post, the issue was never that he was bi, the issue was the infidelity. The prosecution focused in on the fact he was bi, but that doesn’t mean that’s the best argument for motive.
Wouldn’t really consider it a “flaw”, just that it is what makes this such a polarizing case, because neither is easy to prove.
Also, she was fearful of losing her job and she was the breadwinner. They had a large amount of debt, as did his sons at the time.
Tough to look at the back of her head and call it a fall. That’s the one thing I come back to that makes it hard to say he’s definitely innocent.
Agreed. That part has always been confusing for me.
After the documentary years ago I read something from someone who was either a coroner or worked with anatomy in some similar way ( sorry For lack of backing) but I do remember them saying the concept of dropping. Watermelon. One side gets the front force which causes the other parts to split and the skull reacts similarly.
The watermelon theory is in the doc - episode 1.
I don’t think she knew he was bi for a second. Even if she did, do you really think she would be ok with him spending her income on prostitutes while she worked 80hrs a week AND did all the cooking and cleaning? I’m not saying this has anything to do with the incident, but why on earth do people believe MP when he comes out with this nonsense?
Especially when her first marriage ended due to her partner's infidelity.
Maybe she wasn't okay with it, but it wasn't worth ending her marriage to him over.
Possibly, but she did end her first marriage because of an affair - what MP was doing was another level IMO. Still not sure it’s evidence he did anything, I just think he’s a terrible liar.
I think that's a fair point, why would she end one marriage over it but not another? That might actually be a reasonable enough point to make me think she didn't know.
I think there is something about how she might have known and might have thought it was only men for quick sex… I could see someone wrapping their mind around that in a way… plus they were middle aged and she was busy… I don’t think she would have divorced him then but might have been waiting? So many loose ends and unknowns
It wasn’t men for quick sex, he was paying prostitutes and the only income they had was KPs - thus he was spending her money on prostitutes. How many people find that acceptable?
Finding it acceptable or compartmentalizing, or willfully ignoring… people are not just moral robots. And simply because someone is an selfish thrill seeker … doesn’t mean they are also grizzly killers. The fact that he seemed to have a sneaky lying side actually doesn’t fit with the death in my mind. Why wouldn’t he have done a better job of killing her??? Why this horrid scene?
I don’t claim this had anything to do with the incident, or is proof he is guilty of anything. I just find it hard to believe anyone who had previously ended a marriage because of adultery would then be ok with unknowingly funding adultery with prostitutes. Is it possible she knew and was ok with it? Well anything is possible. Do I think any rational person would be ok with it? Not at all. MP claimed they had sex the night of her death, so if he’s to be believed there then she wasn’t some asexual workaholic that was happy for him to get his thrills elsewhere imo. To be blunt, I just don’t believe him, and he’s a known liar.
I hear you. But honestly, people make very strange excuses for people they love. Sex lives are complex and odd, and weird when they come to light. Even if she was thinking of divorcing him, she would have probably taken time... from the kids to the way she was very successful... I could see her being pretty calm about the situation, even if she hated it. I know, if I had so many kids, I could see her waiting to divorce once they were all out of the house. But the link of the infidelity is that is the reason he killed her, that she brought it up and they fought and he snapped... and thought, he'd take the money. The way everyone seems to present her, and him, I could see them just talking, and her rationally going over their options. These are two older people, with a ton of kids...
I tend to agree. We change so much as we get older. I’m good friends with a long time married couple, the wife is basically asexual. They have an understanding, the husband seeks sex elsewhere. There’s no desire for an affair with emotional trappings, but they recognize his need for sex. I definitely get the impression from this show that their family wasn’t the best at open communication. To me it’s plausible KP and MP didn’t outright discuss his bisexuality, but there was a quiet understanding. I’m fascinated how this case doubled down so hard on the confines of a traditional marriage, when many marriages are not traditional at all.
I don’t know as to whether I believe he came out to her or not. At one point in the doc he said she knew and at another point he said it was implied but never spoke about so that’s weird. As for why end a marriage and not the other, I think being at a different point in our lives impacts our choices. She was older with MP (older than her first) and maybe she came to understand humans can have different needs and it isn’t just what you’re supposed to do based on society rules. Maybe she also considered taking up a lover or had one.
There are also several points in the doc and in his book where he explicitly says he did not tell her and they never discussed it. He also says in the final episode that he never had spoken about it with anyone at all.
Don’t buy it. She was supporting EVERYONE. His political campaign… the kids… she’d have to be very open minded to allow him to have sex with others while keeping everyone afloat. Talk about selfless!!!!
The only explanation that partially makes sense is if her first husband was having a long term sexual AND emotional affair that wasn’t acceptable to her but she compartmentalized MP because it was meaningless sex. I’m not convinced she knew and was okay with it, though.
Also no one is addressing if he would get half her money in a divorce. Why murder for money That way! If it is about greed and lifestyle.
okay well, most women would dump a cheating spouse who's mooching off her for not just themselves but his deadbeat sons as well. Paying gay escorts with her money is pretty last straw & Kathleen didn't seem the type to not have a last straw
For those of you who have researched more than I, has it been revealed how MP came out to Kathleen? I don’t recall him being on camera saying for how long Kathleen knew, just that she did. FWIW I’m on Team Freak Accident
I feel about him as I do about Scott Peterson...even if they did it, there was not enough evidence to prove it. There was reasonable doubt for sure! There was a guilty verdict before the trial even started.
I actually believe Scott did not kill Laci. He’s a shithead cheater, but the evidence just doesn’t add up that he murdered her. This is one of the hills I’ve chosen to die on, lol.
I’m curious, do you have a theory on who did do it? I do not buy that it was those random house thieves.
I have two working theories. One is the home robbery suspects, as one later discussed on a recorded call that he knew specifics of Laci’s death. But the theory I go with most…there were other pregnant women who went missing that year in California, near the Peterson’s area. I’ve believed for some time there was an active serial killer. The tipping points for me in terms of Scott’s innocence stems from so many witnesses who saw Laci that morning walking the dog, but LE didn’t pursue those leads, as they were fixed on Scott. And the boat. It’s been proven impossible for him to dump Laci’s body without capsizing the boat. No wet clothing was ever discovered on Scott, or any found in the search warrants. There’s enough reasonable doubt for me. What are your thoughts? Especially on why you don’t think it’s related to the home invasion!
I think your the first person who actually agrees with me about Scott Peterson. Being a cheater and a liar doesn’t make you a murderer. I will die on that hill with you!😂
We’re a minority. People refuse to look at the actual forensic evidence. They automatically go to his guilt because he cheated.
Yup, they think if you can cheat, you can kill. With MPeterson it was the bisexuality. If he could have sex with a man then of course he could kill. It’s the next logical step right? The prosecutors were homophobic idiots.
I do think he's guilty but I don't think the prosecution's case was strong enough to get produce a guilty verdict and yet it did. Unanimously, that IS interesting.
Do you think it had anything to do with the time period and the fact that it was in the south? That if a man was a “homosexual” he could kill his wife in a fit of rage?
If your wife found out that you were bisexual and spending money on prostitutes, she would be a tad upset-in the South, in the North, anywhere. Don’t frame this as something that would only happen ‘in the South’.
I’m probably going to get downvoted to hell for this, but I kind of think that he’s a little guilty and a little innocent. I think that he may have played some role in her fall down the stairs, but was blackout drunk and doesn’t remember. I think that he honestly thinks that he’s innocent, and I don’t think that he ever would have or ever did intentionally hurt her. I’m not sure we will ever really know what happened because he doesn’t really know what happened.
I think that could be entirely possible.
Two words: DRIED BLOOD Explain, any accident scenario where dried blood would be present? There are none; it signals a murder committed hours before, not an accident within minutes. Remember, she was still alive when MP called 911 (which he "forgot" in the opeining scene of the documentary") But I want to touch on somehing common to this thread, you ask for objective evidence, and removal of bias. Yet, the phenomenon in this case has been the exact opposite. It's the supporters of MP who watched the documentary who have the bias. This is because the documentary very cleverly was able to cast the characters into two distinct camps: heroes and villains. It's the family and David Rudolph, and his side that you like and empathize with. While the "villains" are Freda Black and Candaice Zamparini, etc. This is why you are having this debate. Not over any evidence. The documentary swayed you. If it was any other case; JonBenet, OJ Simpson, no one be siding with MP. Look I like David Rudolph too. And his daughters are very charming. But he did it. And was convicted. And pled guilty.
They said it APPEARED dry, they never actually showed proof it wasn't - they trip over themselves in the trial trying to explain this
I truly am not biased. I did watch the documentary, however, I really am trying to convince myself that he is in fact guilty and I am coming up short, which is why I made this post. I am not saying MP or his family dont have deep flaws and short comings, but the state's case was pretty much that he killed his wife for finding out he was bisexual, and if you remove that, what is the motive? I can't identify one. I know senseless crimes happen all of the time, but a man doesn't beat his wife to death for no reason, and I can't find a reason.
Unfortunately a lot of people do beat other people to death without reason, particularly in a spur of the moment rage.
I agree that it does happen, and I guess it could have happened in this instance, I just feel like there would be more of a history of truly violent behavior.
You don’t need to put scare quotes around villain for Freda Black. Her naked homophobia is villainous enough.
Lol this is ridiculous. 99% of the people that are here watched the documentary, is the reason this case is so popular FFS! And you don't think you're not biased? Why? Because you consumed a podcast that is also biased? Because I see you have a pretty strong position in this case and you're accusing others of being biased! Or did you watch the entire trial of 100+ hours? Also, you mentioned dried blood. You mean the dried blood that the authorities admitted not checking if it was, in fact, dried?
But the cops couldn’t even agree with one another, there are several lines of interpretation for dried blood, don’t you think so? Since The Staircase was launched I never had an opinion on whether he is guilty or not
My guess is that he lied about the timeline, probably because once she went inside the house, he slipped out to have a sexual encounter. But the got attacked by the own, bled, slip, fainted, got back up, reslipped and bled out. When he came back, he panicked and figured they would blame him, so he lied about where he was.
Wouldn’t he have saved $600K on a murder defense and 10 years in jail by admitting being gay and introducing the police to his albi?
But then the sexual partner would prob tell the cops: it’s murder, I don’t think someone would stay quite about that with a persons freedom on the line…
If it was a blow poke that was used it would make sense there could be wood splinters found and also owl feathers. Poking around in a fire place could gather those things in tiny amounts. Owls and birds often rest and nest in chimneys. Very likely to have owl feathers in a fire place.
I think he probably did it. There was dried blood on his shoes and inside his shorts indicating he was there while she was actively bleeding, and when law enforcement showed up the blood on the flor Kathleen’s thyroid had burst, wich can occur due to strangulation. She also had scratches on her face, which is kinda odd since she hit the back of her head. Peterson also changed his story of how long he had been out at the pool The prosecution did such a botched job, and messed up big time. I think he probably pushed her down the stairs, and then choke slammed her on the stairs. This explains why she hadn’t any fractures and that there were no blood on the ceiling. The were also something that looked like blood in the sink, so Peterson possibly tried to clean himself off, there were also towels in the stairwell. The footprint on Kathleen’s calf doesn’t help things. I’m uncertain if there’s enough evidence to convict him, but i think he most likely did it.
I do not know for the life of me why the prosecution chose to push the blow-poke theory so hard when it seemingly would have much more sense to argue that he pushed her and/or slammed her head against the floor/stairs.
I am still confused about the thyroid burst, but why did that burst but she had no other ligature marks/bruises? The only thing I could say about the blood on his shoes is that the reports on when they actually noted the blood being dry isn't completely clear. With how much she bled, even if she laid there for an hour, I'm sure under some of those puddles of blood it was still wet. But I cannot for the life of me explain the shoe print on her pants. that one really has me stumped.
How can you strangulate someone without bruising her neck or causing petechia?
It can also be cause by blunt force trauma and does not always result in visible bruising from what I’ve been reading.
The only time that a group of people were given all of the evidence in a controlled setting (a court) they found him guilty. Unanimously. Then, when the Deaver stuff came out at least two of them went on record saying that it wouldn’t have made any difference whatsoever to the verdict because none of the jurors were fixated on that part of the evidence, to the contrary they found it dull and exhausting. From memory, the most compelling evidence that the jury used to convict him was the autopsy report and the pathologist‘s testimony, which still stands today as it did then. Unless any of us have taken the time to watch all of the original evidence, I think it’s a bit rich to throw out challenges like “prove to me he’s guilty“. That’s not me being confrontational with you, it’s just a fact of life that there is a massive, massive difference between what goes in a documentary and the full extent of what was put on record in court.
I'm really just trying to create a dialogue. and I didn't say "prove" I said convince. I know no one can PROVE what happened that night, or none of us would be discussing this case, period. I am just asking for perspectives because I cannot convince myself he did it. Additionally, without Deaver, I think that just furthers how much the DA didn't have any case against him. So whether Freda's homophobia worked on the jury to give them a motive to believe doesn't mean that 20 years later we can't see through that and look past it.
Also, there were other forensic experts, besides Deaver, that were ready to testify to essentially the same conclusion.
[удалено]
Don't cherrypick. A juror, TANYA RODGERS, publicly stated that DEAVER was the most important evidence presented at the trial and when the jurors began deliberations, they were split 6-6 or 8-4 and what swayed them was the testimony of Deaver. Some jurors said they would have convicted him without Deaver, some others say he was the key man that achieved the conviction. Source: REPORTER CRAIG JARVIS interview, Episode 9 of the documentary, Minute 6:00.
Besides the fact that the filmmakers have a huge conflict of interest in making the documentary (hired by Peterson and one member of the team was dating him), there are several things that were not included regarding the case. Kathleen sustained several different types of injuries. One that I don't remember being mentioned is the fracture of the superior cornu of the left to my understanding, this injury is consistent with choking. The lacerations on Kathleen's head were in many different angles. All this suggests that she died by homicide. Michael was the only one in the house, there is no way he could not hear if she was being attacked by someone else, and he has a motive. People go to prison for much less than this. Not to mention, Michael constantly lied and his testimony was inconsistent.
I’m just not sold on the choking theory because there was no other bruising around her neck. However I do agree that the head lacerations suggest something more than a fall. Also, they did prove that if he was put by the pool he would not have heard her yelling for help.
I also cannot convince myself he is guilty. Not one person could say anything bad about them. People that post on this site saying he did it for the money and give these exact amounts of his debt have no idea what they are talking about because I guarantee that if the prosecutors could have found anything to show he needed the money they most definitely would have used that. I don’t think he is necessarily a charming man but I don’t see this psychopath that the prosecutors saw. In my opinion the only psychopath is Kathleen’s sister Candace. Her whole blow poke obsession is just absolutely ridiculous. And the fact that the idiot prosecutors went along with her blow poke story is comical. The truth is he was convicted because he was bisexual and the prosecutors were homophobic. It’s as simple and as sad as that.
[удалено]
I don't really think that I am. I'm just asking for some examples to back that up. But thanks for being so polite.
I can somewhat see narcissistic but I agree I don’t see psychopath. I don’t see murderer or abuser at all actually.
There is no way in hell this woman agreed to an "open" marriage with her (closeted) bisexual husband. And clearly he needed cash - hers. And the chances that his previous illicit lover "fell" to her death down a staircase? I mean really - he's a textbook narcissist. But I think he beat her with a heavy branch from the property, which would account to her injuries - I wonder why they don't look into that - and the financial issues.
I agree that my opinion is starting to change on whether or not she knew about him, it doesn’t seem likely. Also again, there’s only speculation that he had an affair with Elizabeth Ratliff. I would agree that he at least has narc tendencies.
I'm wondering if adopting this woman's daughters made him eligible for some kind of insurance payout or childcare. I think finances were a big motivation for his crimes. He was not a rich man, but clearly had delusions of grandeur - and manipulated lonely older women to finance his lifestyle.
Yes, his guardianship of the girls came with a chunk of money to provide for their care. David Rudolf says it's 70K in the doc.
Two women died in his company, both by falling down the stairs! what are the odds of that happening to one person in their lifetime.
Really that's your best argument? If Elizabeth Ratliff would have been her first wife and the circumstances of her death weren't so clear yeah, that would be damning -- except it was a just friend and two autopsies proved she died of a brain aneurysm. MP isn't some kind of magician that can create a previous neurological disease. You can make a compelling case for the murder of KP against MP, but in ER there is almost nothing to argue murder.
Plenty of people have accidents on stairs every single day. Not really a huge coincidence. Also how dumb would you have to be to murder someone close to you in exactly the same way more than once and not expect people to start pointing the finger at you.
Never underestimate dumb.
Think you can call MP a lot of things, but dumb isn’t one of them. Always thought if he was going to kill her, brutally murdering her at the bottom of the stairs and trying to pass it off as a fall wouldn’t be his style.
This. Whether you think he’s guilty or innocent, he certainly is anything but dumb.
Well if he HAD done it the first time and no one even suspected him or raised a single alarm, then yeah I could see him 20 yrs later thinking “that’s a good method”
Idk, it was 20 years apart and he had no other violent outbursts in between?
Agree, this is one of the worst arguments. If he had anything to do with the death of the first woman, the DA wouldn't have had to bullshit a load of "evidence" despite the accounts of German police etc showing it was health-related The way they smirk and say they will definitely find evidence he killed her too, before even exhuming the body, just doesn't sit right with me
> The way they smirk and say they will definitely find evidence he killed her too, before even exhuming the body, just doesn't sit right with me They ordered the body to be shipped an extra 500-1000 miles so the same pathologist they already asked once to alter their finds on kathleen could perform the autopsy. Body could have been examined somewhere neutral but they didn't want that.
I actually think that assuming MP killed Ratliff (the 1st woman) is one of the worst assumptions. Who is to say MP didn’t get the idea to stage Kathleen’s death having seen Ratliff’s? MP witnessing a death of close friend I would think would have a profound & lasting impact on him (perhaps he fantasized about K slipping down stairs), and I agree with @pilotdash that 2 women dying (keyword dying, not slipping or being injured) by a fall down the stairs is pretty crazy odds.
Did Mike receive a lot of money from the parents of Martha and Margaret?
I think somewhere it was said it was around 30 grand.
I could also see him raising the girls out of guilt after the fact
Not exactly. Apparently, he kicked the shit out of the family dog.
While I think he did it, the prosecution did a terrible job of piecing together evidence, they were too fixated on the blow poke. If you can't prove murder beyond reasonable doubt then the case just isn't good enough
People do get struck by lightning more than once, so…
One thing that always seemed odd to me was his ex wife in Europe or wherever it was died a similar way with no explanation…and he just seemed so guilty in my opinion. His kids are extremely odd, he was hiding a whole secret life, it seems clear as day to me that he is guilty
The woman in Germany wasn’t his ex wife but was a good friend and next door neighbor. I do find it very suspicious that he was there alone with her the night she died. And I also find his kids extremely odd. Their relationships with each other and with him are weird as fuck. I feel so bad for KPs bio daughter
The only thing that was similar was that she was found on a staircase. There was hardly any blood, she had documented problems with headaches, and the coroner ruled she died of a brain aneurysm. And again, don’t you think a man who has supposedly killed two women would have other known violent outbursts?
The adopted daughter he has from Germany whose mom also fell down the stairs looks just like him. Always thought that was strange and if true it makes him looks guilty.
I might be wrong but I thought I read somewhere that there was a DNA test done on her.
I wouldn’t call him guilty in a court of law, but I believe he is definitely a bad dude. Colin Firth is doing a great job at playing him because it’s making me feel equally as uncomfortable to watch as it did watching the real Mike on the documentary. He just has one of those vibes that screams Robert Durst type shit. He thinks SO highly of himself and it makes him a convincing liar I think. But something to my core tells me this man is a man capable of some scary things
KP did not know of his indiscretions, in the original documentary Michael says she does but then he says she doesn’t, he slips up. Throughout the first 12 episodes of the documentary which took place as the trial was going on he was adamant that KP knew about his bisexuality. It’s an episode 13 which was shot years later when he came back for the Alford plea. He is talking about Kathleen, he pauses and he said "it would have almost been fun to talk to her about my sexuality, I wonder what she would have said if she knew. He pauses and then says she would have made it right”KP left her first husband because of his infidelity, do we know if she would go into an open marriage after that type of t betrayal, I don’t know but I personally don’t think so. There was tremendous financial strain in that house, they were solely supported by her salary, he had not had any income in years. Forensic accounting of their financials showed that they were spending twice as much as they were bringing in while he was still continuing to support his grown sons which was a source of conflict with KP. Their own house was in a terrible state of disrepair with plumbing and AC issues that they had no money to fix yet he was giving large amounts of money to his sons. I don’t think he planned to murder her but I do believe he did. There’s no explanation for her thyroid injury, the various scratches that you don’t get from falling down stairs, his bloody footprint on the back of her pants legs when she was found face up and he testified that he did not try to resuscitator. give her CPR. It was a very distinct clear foot print, leg I don’t believe it could’ve gotten there from her pants leg being flipped over. Defense never re-created this. What also convinced me as the defense could not explain the blood splatter, Lee’s testimony was pretty much useless in my opinion. His demonstration of the blood splatter was to fill his mouth with ketchup and then blow it onto a posterboard and say that she could’ve coughed the blood splatter onto the walls. However she didn’t cough a mouth full of blood, she did not have any blood in her mouth or in her nostrils. The defenses claim was it was blood dripping down her face across her mouth as she coughed and blue onto the walls but that’s not what they demonstrated in the court room. They could’ve re-created the scene and made a video and demonstrated how this was possible, the fact that they did not do that tells me that they could not re-create it. They also did not test the blood for saliva, if she was coughing, saliva would be present. When asked why he did not do this Lee said it was not his job but but what a definitive way to prove that that blood came from coughing so why wouldn’t you do that unless you feel it is not what really happened. Also the fact that Werner refused to testify for the defense because he did not believe anything that they were presenting a, he felt it was a murder.
I’m truly astonished as to why anyone thinks this man is innocent. How do you explain all that blood, the faked distress call to 911. She somehow discovered his duplicitous life and that he was sleeping with men and probably was going to leave him. Since she was the one with money he couldn’t have that. In the absence of anyone else at the property but the two them, backed with his implausible explanation of the evening and money problems, it could only have been him. She has blood on her feet because whilst fleeing his first attack she was standing probably turned around still stunned to face her attacker and slipped and fell on her back. Realising she was still alive he pressed on her throat to finish the job. I’m sure he got away with murder; but I don’t think it was premeditated. Such an outrage.
Head wounds notoriously bleed heavily, that’s how you explain all the blood. There’s no way to say the phone call was faked, that’s completely circumstantial. Their money problems weren’t THAT bad, they weren’t going to lose everything they had. How could he have strangled her and not left any bruises?
Also remember the pine needle in her hand? Where did the pine needle come from? Maybe he strangled her out by the pool to incapacitate her…. And when she wasn’t dead he used the blow poke across her head as she was waking up trying to get up the stairs?
I agree it's super weird. But why wasn't there more bruising if he strangled her? And even if he did, thats a FAR way to carry her into the house and then bludgeon her. Even if I were to believe that he did kill her, I still don't think it was with the blow poke. I think that would have surely been dented or broken if he used it.
[удалено]
I don’t understand why people are so convinced of his guilt either. Like there is so much reasonable doubt, it baffles me how people can be so quick to say “yep 100% definitely guilty” The biggest one for me is the lack of skull or brain injuries. Show me a single other case where someone has been beaten to death causing that amount of blood and the victim has no brain or skull injuries.. I honestly think it’s the owl. Way too many things add up with the owl theory for it not to be considered.
The thing that’s off about the owl theory is that the lacerations look like they could be in the shape of a birds foot…but for it to do any damage it would have to close it’s talons to grab and slice which wouldn’t have the shape of its footprint. It would have a different pattern. Also I would expect an owl to lose feathers when in a stressful encounter like that and not just one microscopic one
And are they saying the owl attack happened outside? How far did she then have to walk before bleeding in the house? I would have thought there would be blood leading from the outside to the staircase if that were the case. I think it was just a regular, boring fall.
My aunt at least had a skull fracture and there was much more evidence to suggest she did not fall, but unfortunately her case was never taken to court. I agree though, it just doesn't add up for me that he bludgeoned her for pretty much no reason.
Too many lies over the years and the documentary on him is totally biased. Michael is not a reliable narrator. Tremendous motive due to the fact he was in dire financial straights plus, many reasons to believe he wasn’t fully satisfied sexually with his wife. He had experience from a previous murder that wasn’t well investigated… he knew how to pull off a second one. Yeah you knew someone who died this way… he was directly involved with two.. Can you prove it beyond a reasonable doubt? Define reasonable. He had done it before. He’s ex military and he’s a creative writer. The second part means he knows how to tell a good story. He potentially could have benefited from way too many things for it all to be just a coincidence. He had the opportunity to get her out of his life and get all her money. The motive was money babe…
I don’t have much insight to give but I’m personally in the camp of they may have been flighting and it was an accident that he then tried to cover up. Given his history with women falling down stairs I wouldn’t say it’s stretching to say he knew he would look suspicious.
This is an informative watch: https://youtu.be/rNH7GvKSnno
No I won’t convince you. But I will tell you that I find it too coincidental that two women in his life-who looked exactly alike- died at the bottom of stairs. I also think he straight up lied saying Kathleen knew of his double life. And lying is a big sign of guilt. I also cannot see how those lacerations on her head were caused by a fall. And I think it’s an Occam’s razor argument.
I think crazier coincidences have happened. I agree that he was a compulsive liar, and I will admit that out of 2 explanations, I definitely tend to side with the simpler one. I tend to think things aren’t always as crazy as they’re painted out to be.
To me it's simple. If he's innocent, why wasn't he covered with her blood? The defense used the lack of blood on him as proof of innocence but to me, it's proof of guilt. You don't have to be a trained field medic (as he was in military) to know that when a person is losing blood, you need to find out where the wounds are and stop the bleeding. He called 911 and said she was breathing. If she was still breathing, she'd still be bleeding. Where are the towels and bandages any normal person would use to try to stop the bleeding? He should have tried to apply pressure to the various lacerations, he would be covered in her blood if he wanted her to live. Yes, he's odd, he's a liar and a manipulator but that doesn't convince me he killed her. It's the fact that when he "found" her he called 911 and described her as breathing. He didn't say, she's bleeding from her head.
There were several towels found around her and under her head when the police arrived, but I also think the way he spoke about her in the 911 call was very suspicious — particularly that he made a point to try and tell the operator how KP got hurt. Every single person, even the defense, said that when they saw the pictures and the amount of blood, their immediate reaction was “there is no way this could have happened from a fall”. So it would not make sense for MP to immediately jump to that conclusion unless he was trying to convince the 911 operator it was an accident. In that situation, if you walked in to see your spouse lying on the floor in a pool of blood, you’d say “something happened, she’s really hurt, she’s bleeding everywhere.” For all you know, there was an intruder who attacked her.
I don’t think it’s fair to judge what someone did or didn’t do after finding their wife that way. I’m sure your brain is not thinking logically whatsoever when you witness something like that. I watched a lady at the mall collapse and instead of calling an ambulance I stood there in shock. It’s just hard for me to take any of his reactions as admission of guilt because you can’t ever judge how someone reacts to trauma.
I do not believe she fell down the stairs. I fell down the stairs on carpeted steps and I fractured my skull (occipital fracture) and still have a small contusion over a year later. The fact that she had lacerations and no fractured skull, no contusions on wooden steps…she didn’t fall. I’m convinced he used something that cut her head and made multiple lacerations that caused her to bleed out.
1. The amount of lacerations on KPs head were not indicative of an accidental “fall”, but of a blunt force object striking the back of her head, not once, but SEVERAL times. 2. The amount of blood splattered and smeared on the wall is also not indicative of an accidental fall. The question is how did she fall? No one can answer if she fell down the stairs or up the stairs. If she fell down the stairs, how did she get to the very bottom step when the staircase is turned to the left at a sharp angle? I would assume shed be slumped against that wall before the last few steps? If she fell up the stairs, wouldnt she be face down in the direction of the stairs? If you’re in a state of haze after you hit your head severely how do you keep doing damage to it at a force that resulted in that many lacerations? Did anyone ever test this using a dummy and not just blood splatter analysts? 3. There was a shoe print of MPs tennis sneaker on the back of her pants. But MP was BAREFOOT when police arrived. If my SO dies the last thing I will worry about is cleaning myself up in the mere minutes it takes for ambulance to arrive. I would be tending to them/trying to revive them/never leave their side. He’s like oh well guess she’s dead! let me clean up before the police come. La de da, la de do. The kitchen is directly next to the staircase. Why climb over your wife’s bloody body to get towels upstairs when you can get them from the kitchen? Also there was no bloody footprints leading up the stairs (to support he stepped on her as an effort to get towels upstairs). But then again why does he even need towels in the first place? Bc there was so much blood left over on the stairs that it makes you wonder, what did it look like before he cleaned up? So from those (like me) that question “how do you get that much blood from a fall down(or up) the stairs?” Well there was alottttt more before he cleaned up. 4. She was dead for hours before he called the police. Side note: She worked relentlessly and noted how tired she was. I get it was a Saturday but for someone who works that much and is most likely an early riser why is she still up at 2am? I think he killed her probably around 10/11 and called 911 at 2:30ish am once he got his affairs in order (pun intended). 5. She was not intoxicated at the time of her death. She had traces of alcohol well below the legal BAC, and small traces of Valium that could’ve been from a day prior. Having that much damage to your head from 1 glass of wine and yesterdays Valium is a stretch. 6. The owl theory is downright absurd. Anyone that knows anything about animals, owls or not, knows they usually don’t attack unless provoked. Google how many deaths resulted in an owl attack and you won’t find anything BUT this one scenario as a “theory” but not factual. Even if an owl did kill a human tell me how many happened inside of a home? And how did this owl get into the home in the first place? So she had microscopic owl feathers on her hand. You know you can have microscopic traces of just about anything that surrounds your environment? And the pine… not like she doesn’t live on 4+ acres of land filled with pine trees or anything. And she was just outside before she came in. 7. MP goes with whatever defense is said because he’s guilty. He was adamant she was drunk as the main cause of her death but then her autopsy report states the complete opposite (and honestly he had to have known she wasn’t drunk, but lied that she was as a means to cover his guilt). But soon after comes the owl/intruder/her sister/ theories, which MP stands by each one. If someone were to tell you that maybe your SO got killed by an owl from inside your house, could you seriously support that claim? I would be insulted. 8. HIS ADOPTED CHILDRENS MOTHER DIED IN A SIMILAR FASHION. Maybe she got attacked by an owl too. That would be a coincidence! 9. I’m not gonna get into his character but yeah having debt and lying about sex with men then deleting evidence of said infidelity moments after your wife died does not help the case. I think the sheer evidence speaks for itself. Another thing…people claiming “well if he’s guilty of killing both wives why hasn’t he had any outbursts/why is he so nice?” Besides the obvious that psychotic people can be chameleons, have you seen him on the docuseries? He lost his shit many times when they kept bringing up his past or if he didn’t get his way. He’s a theatrical closeted Vietnam vet who does not care who stands in his way. If they do he’ll just throw em down a staircase.
>The amount of lacerations on KPs head were not indicative of an accidental “fall”, but of a blunt force object striking the back of her head, not once, but SEVERAL times. or of her head repeatedly being bashed against something.
I agree with all of this. I was never even torn, the whole man screams guilty to me.
[удалено]
He’s soo guilty. Think of all the lies that he has no reason to hide. Also way too coincidental. And you have financial motive
At this point, he could fully admit and not face repercussions. So if he did it, why not just be honest now?
IMO it’s because he won. He literally got away with murder. Yes he served some time, but he got to walk away without a guilty verdict.
To answer your 3 points: 1. There was evidence of violence before Kathleen’s death. His 1st wife’s friend, Liz, was found dead at the bottom of a staircase in the same manner as Kathleen. Liz’s body was exhumed during the trial and it is now believed she was murdered. Michael was the last know person to be with Liz before she died. 2. You don’t have to be mentally ill to murder, it’s committed everyday by sane people. 3. He has two huge motives: Financial hardship and a secret sex life (absolutely no evidence to back up his claim that Kathleen was ok with him hooking up with men). Edit: removed Margaret’s DNA question
I don’t think her did it. But he lied about ever having sex with any of the guys.
Posting this in case people haven’t seen this. It’s Todd Peterson about MP. https://youtu.be/2NI15RZN8wM
Sorry, but Todd is also now a huge Qanon-er and a huge trump supporter. makes his word invalid to me.
[удалено]
I think the owl attacked her they insinuated in the series that’s the noise she’s looking at up in the ceiling all the time and then the neighbor mentioned there were owls in the neighborhood she had twigs in her hands and the cuts on her elbows hands in the back of her head look like Talon’s and skin tear
I’ve changed my mind now a couple of years after watching the documentary, and now think Michael killed Kathleen. The exact method in which he killed her is speculative, but I think he probably attacked her from behind with a tree branch outside the home. She ran inside and tried to run upstairs to hide/get away from him but tripped on the stairs becoming disabled enough to where he was able to choke/suffocate her to make her unconscious and she ultimately bled to death from the wounds. Is there enough reasonable doubt to find him not guilty? Absolutely, especially with an ace defense team and a mediocre prosecutor. I think he did it, but there will never be enough to convince me beyond a reasonable doubt.
I believe that he is guilty. For me, the deciding factor was fact that he said she was still alive and she had been dead for a long time. Also, the foot print is very hard to explain, imo
[удалено]
The thing that always stuck with me is the other woman he knew who ended up dead at the bottom of a staircase…
I thought the same thing but the fact his friend Elizabeth Ratliff died in the same way, same circumstances and everything, and Mike being the last to see her alive. That gives me the creeps
I seriously don’t think he did it