Topic: The Staircase (Netflix) *SPOILERS*

[Ciara (with a capital "C")]

Has anyone watched this 13-episode Netflix documentary?

Woman found dead at bottom of her stairs. Husband arrested for murder. Husband says he is innocent. Cameras film him from bail to trial and beyond. Husband is a fairly successful writer and somewhat famous in his field.

Quite incredible... I feel like I need to talk about it with people... one of the most interesting crime docs I’ve ever watched and one of the best.

So much about it is so odd. And things you find out outside of the series. ‘THE THEORY’’

[kavah]

Yes it's great TV. Watched it a couple of weeks ago. Mad how the French TV crew got such amazing acess to everything.

What's "the theory?"

He was stitched up of course by the forensics in the initial trial - but I must admit I thought he was a wrong-un.
My Mrs called it right I think when he was released on the "Alford" when she said the judge should insist he moves into a bungalow 😁

[LovelyCushionedHeader]

Watched the first ten episodes years ago; I think the other three episodes are new following release and potential re-trial. It's great that its now on Netflix as it will get more exposure.

I have my suspicions that he's guilty but there was far too much doubt to warrant a conviction.

What's "the theory?"

It involves an owl. Apparently owl attacks are common in the area and they found feathers at the crime scene and some blood outside where the attack would have happened.

[Millie]

I was going to start a thread on this.  Found it fascinating.  No idea if he is guilty or not given the perjury by Deaver.

I have also just listened to the BBC Radio 5 Podcast - called "Beyond Reasonable Doubt".  It's 17 episodes.  Probably a bit more balanced in that they talk to both sides.  They also look into the "Owl" theory quite a bit.

[Millie]

Watched the first ten episodes years ago; I think the other three episodes are new following release and potential re-trial. It's great that its now on Netflix as it will get more exposure.

I have my suspicions that he's guilty but there was far too much doubt to warrant a conviction.

It involves an owl. Apparently owl attacks are common in the area and they found feathers at the crime scene and some blood outside where the attack would have happened.

Apparently the victim was clutching a feather with a clump of her hair as well.

[Ciara (with a capital "C")]

I was going to start a thread on this.  Found it fascinating.  No idea if he is guilty or not given the perjury by Deaver.

I have also just listened to the BBC Radio 5 Podcast - called "Beyond Reasonable Doubt".  It's 17 episodes.  Probably a bit more balanced in that they talk to both sides.  They also look into the "Owl" theory quite a bit.

I finished the Netflix episodes last night and then Googled to read some more about it and saw there was a podcast. Looking forward to listening to that! Especially if it's more balanced... obviously the series was heavily biased in Michael's favour. When in prison, he started to write to the editor and she ended up visiting him a few times a year from France and they ended up being in a relationship for 12+ years - it only ended a year or two ago. So instantly I am keen to know what didn't make the cuts.

[Ciara (with a capital "C")]

Watching the series I felt it was really odd. The family behaved oddly. Laughing and joking throughout his bail and trial, just some of their characteristics etc.. but I didn't think there was enough shown from what we saw to convict him.

I read a lot last night when I finished the series - the owl theory, how the son was a bit of a dangerous guy - in and out of prison (once for planting a pipe bomb), how Michael was in a lot of debt, how Kathleen was supposedly dead for 2+ hours etc... And now it makes me question if he was involved. I read a lot but don't know where this stuff has come from or how true it is but if true, I would quite like to know how the defence could explain it away. Even the spatter on the inside of his shorts - how are they explaining that? Was he really outside for 2+ hours whilst she lay dead? In December?

And in the last episode, it was revealed that the Police knew the blowpoke was in the garage - they had removed it from the scene, took pictures etc... Why? Why put it back? What advantage is it for them to leave it there and hope that the family find it, which they would most likely do given it's location? That was all odd. And explains how the family missed it at first.

EDIT: Has there ever been a DNA test on his two daughters...? The non-biological daughters? One looks really like him.

[Ciara (with a capital "C")]

More on the owl theory: http://www.vulture.com/2018/06/the-staircase-netflix-owl-theory-explained.html

Here's the 3 min explanation that is on Netflix: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d3yTgcKhHqU

[djphal]

maybe use spoilers if you are going to give the ending away 

[LovelyCushionedHeader]

I finished the Netflix episodes last night and then Googled to read some more about it and saw there was a podcast. Looking forward to listening to that! Especially if it's more balanced... obviously the series was heavily biased in Michael's favour. When in prison, he started to write to the editor and she ended up visiting him a few times a year from France and they ended up being in a relationship for 12+ years - it only ended a year or two ago. So instantly I am keen to know what didn't make the cuts.

The podcast took a lot of effort to get through for me. About 90% of what you hear has already been dealt with (especially in the first few episodes) in the documentary so it can get quite tedious, but probably worth it for that extra 10%.

[Millie]

Watching the series I felt it was really odd. The family behaved oddly. Laughing and joking throughout his bail and trial, just some of their characteristics etc.. but I didn't think there was enough shown from what we saw to convict him.

I read a lot last night when I finished the series - the owl theory, how the son was a bit of a dangerous guy - in and out of prison (once for planting a pipe bomb), how Michael was in a lot of debt, how Kathleen was supposedly dead for 2+ hours etc... And now it makes me question if he was involved. I read a lot but don't know where this stuff has come from or how true it is but if true, I would quite like to know how the defence could explain it away. Even the spatter on the inside of his shorts - how are they explaining that? Was he really outside for 2+ hours whilst she lay dead? In December?

And in the last episode, it was revealed that the Police knew the blowpoke was in the garage - they had removed it from the scene, took pictures etc... Why? Why put it back? What advantage is it for them to leave it there and hope that the family find it, which they would most likely do given it's location? That was all odd. And explains how the family missed it at first.

EDIT: Has there ever been a DNA test on his two daughters...? The non-biological daughters? One looks really like him.

Yes there has been a DNA test done - it's on his Defence Lawyer's blog

https://davidsrudolf.com/

[classycarra]

I thought the new episodes were good for gaining a further perspective of what everyone goes through over things that seem so open/shut when announced publicly (plea deals for time served etc).

Pretty worthy addition, and the original documentary is very interesting (regardless of any theories people have)

[Ciara (with a capital "C")]

maybe use spoilers if you are going to give the ending away 

Sorry, mate!

[Ciara (with a capital "C")]

Yes there has been a DNA test done - it's on his Defence Lawyer's blog

https://davidsrudolf.com/

Ahh, that's interesting!

This is from David Rudolf just now on Twitter. Would love to see The Owl theory looking into in more detail. Hoping that features on the podcast!

https://twitter.com/DavidSRudolf/status/1013761962302476291

[stoa]

Watching the series I felt it was really odd. The family behaved oddly. Laughing and joking throughout his bail and trial, just some of their characteristics etc.. but I didn't think there was enough shown from what we saw to convict him.

I've only just watched the first two or three episodes and the whole "happy family" stuff was well dodgy. Not sure I'll watched the whole thing though as I find it a bit exhausting and slowly paced. Might just read up on the case...

[Adeemo]

Yes there has been a DNA test done - it's on his Defence Lawyer's blog

https://davidsrudolf.com/

I spent most of the show stating that one of them was definitely his daughter! Amazing similarity considering the circumstances.

No idea if he did it but pretty certain that there wasn't enough to prove him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

[Xxavi]

I watched the first part years ago, the Netflix documentary has some more episodes. When I watched it back then, I had a sense that he was guilty. At the time, Deaver's qualifications and misdeeds were not in the documentary, so I assumed he was telling the truth.

Spoiler

However, looking at the new episodes, I am more inclined to say he didn't do it. My understanding is that if someone is hitting that hard on the victim's head, the skull would crush and it would be a total mess, which wasn't the case here?

Also, this time, I paid more attention to the fact that his first wife and daughters are saying "he just couldn't have done it". Indeed, it is hard to imagine that a nice guy one day turns up and becomes an absolute evil. Even the victim's daughter at the very beginning says she cannot imagine him doing it. And last but not least, Jean-Xavier de Lestrade says he doesn't think Michael did it in an interview. After spending so much time with him, you'd think he got to know the guy a bit.

Either way, the evidence wasn't there to convict him.

[close]

[tubby]

Finished it today and thought it dragged in parts, there was a huge chunk of one episode that was just moving a body from one place to another and didn't really add anything.  Worth it for the complete meltdown by the sister in the final episode though.

As with Making a Murderer it really shakes your belief in the authorities in the US with stuff like this, but my gut instinct was that he was at the very least not telling the full story of what happened.  Plus he never admitted that his wife knew about the bisexuality, he kind of just skitted around it, saying stuff like 'she accepted it' but without saying that she actually knew, like he felt she suspected it was part of his life as opposed to it being outright discussed between them.

All in all, I don't see how it was proved beyond a reasonable doubt that he did it, all just too murky.

[TepidT2O]

This is incredible...

So gripping in the way it is put together,..

Brilliant film making

[RMG]

Plus he never admitted that his wife knew about the bisexuality, he kind of just skitted around it, saying stuff like 'she accepted it' but without saying that she actually knew, like he felt she suspected it was part of his life as opposed to it being outright discussed between them.

Perhaps she knew he was bisexual but wasn't aware he was cheating or contemplating it?

[RMG]

I found it pretty fascinating how dismissive his kids were on camera of any possible guilt, almost like watching people talk about their cult leader.

[Peabee]

Has anyone watched this 13-episode Netflix documentary?

Woman found dead at bottom of her stairs. Husband arrested for murder. Husband says he is innocent. Cameras film him from bail to trial and beyond. Husband is a fairly successful writer and somewhat famous in his field.

Quite incredible... I feel like I need to talk about it with people... one of the most interesting crime docs I’ve ever watched and one of the best.

So much about it is so odd. And things you find out outside of the series. ‘THE THEORY’’

Thanks for this recommendation. I started watching last night, and it’s definitely interesting. I find these true crime docs are always more interesting than any fictional crime show anyway, but this is even better given how it’s been documented from the start. Kudos to the guy who made it.

[Xxavi]

I found it pretty fascinating how dismissive his kids were on camera of any possible guilt, almost like watching people talk about their cult leader.

Why? He is their dad, and they have seen/known him to be a good father and a family man throughout his life. Whatever the government says, that is hardly going to change their opinion on him.

In fact, his children's support made me think that he is innocent. They'd know well if there were some marriage issues going on.

[classycarra]

Why? He is their dad, and they have seen/known him to be a good father and a family man throughout his life. Whatever the government says, that is hardly going to change their opinion on him.

In fact, his children's support made me think that he is innocent. They'd know well if there were some marriage issues going on.

This seems weirdly contradictory.

You point out the biases that make it extremely unlikely that the kids' opinions on his guilt are at all useful objectively, and then use them as justification for leaping to suggesting he's innocent and that there were no issues in the marriage.

Also, I'm not sure I'd refer to prosecutors and law enforcement as "government"

[Xxavi]

This seems weirdly contradictory.

You point out the biases that make it extremely unlikely that the kids' opinions on his guilt are at all useful objectively, and then use them as justification for leaping to suggesting he's innocent and that there were no issues in the marriage.

Also, I'm not sure I'd refer to prosecutors and law enforcement as "government"

Government, outsiders, law enforcement. You name it.

The kids are biased no doubt, but I cannot accept that they would be biased for their tyrannical, murderous dad against their poor mom. Plenty of people who grew up in problem families know well who to blame, especially if the disputes are domestic and not "us vs them". You gotta realize that their dad is accused but their mom is dead. It is far-fetched that they'd know something, they'd suspect their dad killed their mum, but decide to all agree to be quite and support him. For years. Remember, this story went for what, 10-12 years?

Anyway, this is not a simple mystery puzzle on paper. These are the real things these kids lived through for 10-15 years.

[Xxavi]

I just read that one of the prosecutors of the case in 2003-2004 was found dead at her home.

[tubby]

I just read that one of the prosecutors of the case in 2003-2004 was found dead at her home.

At the bottom of a staircase?

[RideTheWalrus]

Not gonna post spoilers but what I'll say is after finishing the documentary I had one conclusion, but the documentary left SO MUCH out of it, once reading furtherI changed my mind.

[Xxavi]

At the bottom of a staircase?

Details have not been released. But I thought of that for a moment. Surely not at the bottom of a staircase?

[kavah]

At the bottom of a staircase?

Ha ha

If you met him ever and you weren’t on the ground floor - “no, after you, please go ahead ... actually I’m taking the elevator ...”

[RMG]

Why? He is their dad, and they have seen/known him to be a good father and a family man throughout his life. Whatever the government says, that is hardly going to change their opinion on him.

Those emails fake were they?

Just because they were portrayed like that in the documentary doesn't mean they didn't have doubts in private. Nothing wrong with supporting their dad, they just came across like cult members at times.

[Ciara (with a capital "C")]

Not gonna post spoilers but what I'll say is after finishing the documentary I had one conclusion, but the documentary left SO MUCH out of it, once reading furtherI changed my mind.

The BBC podcast Beyond Reasonable Doubt mentioned above is a nice leveller.

[Ciara (with a capital "C")]

Details have not been released. But I thought of that for a moment. Surely not at the bottom of a staircase?

Haha!

I read recently that she had suffered a lot of hardship since the trial. She was fired by the DAs office, ended up working as a cleaner and had a few DWIs to her name.

Sad all the same.

[UntouchableLuis]

Binged all of this over the last few days. As others have said - brilliantly shot and absorbing.

Spoiler

I have no idea what really happened. Most of the way through, especially the first few episodes I was convinced Peterson murdered Kathleen. The amount of blood was just ridiculous if she fell down a few steps unless it was incredibly unlucky and she did bang her head, then slipped after she struggled etc like the defence said. But then now I've seen it all I just can't be certain. As others have mentioned on here the fact that the family never ever doubt him, that he's so emotional when talking about Kathleen, I just think if you murdered your wife something would crack eventually in you. I mean those 2 adopted daughters have been through so much shit in their lives, it's one thing to murder your wife but to lie to them, look them in the eye for all those years and pretend you are innocent? I just don't believe he could do that. He seems like the sort of guy that would eventually admit what he did. Personally now I'm leaning towards thinking she was attacked, possibly by an animal (such as the owl theory) but then why would she not go running back to Peterson? How could he really not hear anything either?

I just fail to believe that she simply tripped and banged her head - too much blood surely, and why would you not check on your wife for 2 whole hours?

But there's enough reasonable doubt to say he is not guilty. It seems incredible to me that anyone could say he definitely did it based on the evidence.

As far as the motive would go then yes if she discovered he was bisexual possibly but is that enough to murder her? She might have threatened to end their marriage, ok sure, but would you then murder her over it? Do we really know what else was going on in their marriage though? Sometimes you never know.

I really don't believe he had anything to do with Elizabeth Ratliff's death in 1985 though. I think that was just wrong place wrong time.

Some observations from the series:

Margaret Ratliff is hot.
David Rudolf is a God.
The judge was cool as fuck.

[close]

[owens_2k]

Spoiler

So the Owl theory suggests an owl came indoors (how?), caused the lacerations and then flew back out?

[close]

[Xxavi]

Haha!

I read recently that she had suffered a lot of hardship since the trial. She was fired by the DAs office, ended up working as a cleaner and had a few DWIs to her name.

Sad all the same.

Why was she fired? A misconduct or because of this case?

Either way, it is sad that at one point, a person is well-qualified to decide people's fate, and the next moment, she is jobless and useless. Surely it cannot be that extreme? But unfortunately, this is the fact of life in America.

[Ciara (with a capital "C")]

Went to see Martin Fitzgerald (RAM Album Club and TAW contributor) host David Rudolf In Conversation tonight and it was pretty fascinating. Some bits you don’t see in the documentary and some bits explained in more detail than the document but he went into some detail on the owl theory. He laid out the following facts:

- Barred owls were living in the woods by the Peterson’s home
- They are aggressive and dangerous
- they have attached people visciously
- There were drops of blood outside on the walkway leading to the front door
- there was a large smear of blood on the door frame
- At least two of the wounds on her head were in the shape of an owls talon
- There were tiny wounds found on her face that were never really explained and they are consistent with the shape of an owls beak
- more than one feather was found on her body
- a twig was found on the stairs
- There were clumps of hair found in her hands that had been pulled from the roots

The most interesting thing was that he feels it probably was an owl. And if there was a retrial, he would have no hesitation putting this forward - said it’s instantly more credible than the blowpoke story.

[Sir Psycho Sexy]

saw this not long ago. at first i leaned towards him doing it, but then as it went on i went the other way. Incredible to think an owl attack could have caused all this.

[RedSince86]

I remember watching this on BBC 2 Storyville over 10 years ago.

Brilliant documentary,i found the guy to be creepy AF.

I wasn't surprised at the verdict.

[LovelyCushionedHeader]

Went to see Martin Fitzgerald (RAM Album Club and TAW contributor) host David Rudolf In Conversation tonight and it was pretty fascinating. Some bits you don’t see in the documentary and some bits explained in more detail than the document but he went into some detail on the owl theory. He laid out the following facts:

- Barred owls were living in the woods by the Peterson’s home
- They are aggressive and dangerous
- they have attached people visciously
- There were drops of blood outside on the walkway leading to the front door
- there was a large smear of blood on the door frame
- At least two of the wounds on her head were in the shape of an owls talon
- There were tiny wounds found on her face that were never really explained and they are consistent with the shape of an owls beak
- more than one feather was found on her body
- a twig was found on the stairs
- There were clumps of hair found in her hands that had been pulled from the roots

The most interesting thing was that he feels it probably was an owl. And if there was a retrial, he would have no hesitation putting this forward - said it’s instantly more credible than the blowpoke story.

He talks about it here:

https://davidsrudolf.com/thestaircase/the-owl-theory/

Its amazing really that they never thought of this in the 12 odd years from her death to it coming to light given the wounds, feathers and twig. But then again, I guess death by owl is very outlandish.