speedkilz88
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 36,960
- Reaction score
- 23,105
Finished the HBO Max Series "The Staircase". I was familiar with the case before watching the series. Colin Firth plays the lead character, Michael Peterson who is accused of killing his wife after she is found at the bottom of a weird staircase dead. Toni Collette plays his wife. Sansa Stark, Sophie Turner, plays one of his adopted daughters. I was shocked at how old and decrepit Sophie Turned looks in this series. She is 26 but looks much older in this show, and thin...sickly looking thin.
I give the series a 6 of 10 I guess. I like Colin Firth as an actor, and he did a pretty good job in this series.
Anyway, it is a true crime drama. This series really has two stories. One is a murder and subsequent trial. The other is the making of a documentary about the case by a French documentary crew. You can watch their documentary about the case on Netflix, which I am doing now.
This is a long summary of my thoughts and questions. Read it at your own risk.
If you are familiar with the murder story, the husband is accused of beating his wife to death after he finds her body at the bottom of a steep staircase in their home. There is lots of blood around her body and on the walls of the staircase. The defense argued that she fell and hit her head multiple times on the way down the stairs. She had 7 deep lacerations on her head, but no damage to her skull, no swelling or bleeding on the brain. The medical examiner for the state claimed she had damage cartilage in her neck which is indicative of strangulation but stated the cause of death was blunt force trauma to the head. The prosecution claims the husband beat his wife will a blowpoke causing the lacerations on the head.
What I find intriguing about the case is a weird theory that the Peterson's neighbor came up with. After discovering the ME found tiny feathers in Mrs. Peterson's hair, along with bits of tree bark and twigs, the neighbor, who is also a lawyer, came up with a theory that Mrs. Peterson was actually attacked by an owl outside then bleeding profusely from her scalp, she tried to get up the stairs to treat her head wounds but lost consciousness due to a lost of blood and fell backwards down the stairs, which is why the feathers were in her hair. It also explains the deep lacerations in her head, but no bone damage, and the hair, blood and bits of feather in her hand. Owl experts say that owl attacks are not uncommon, they tend to attack the heads of their victims, and their talons, which can grow to 4 inches in length, are razor sharp and capable of cutting through human skin very easily. An animal expert testified that the wounds on Mrs. Peterson's head do resemble those of an owl attack.
Not saying I agree with this wild theory, but think about how incredible it would be if this theory was true! How did she get owl feathers in her hair? She also had some hair in her hands with bits of feather as well. The prosecution never explained how the feathers got in her hair. They dismissed the theory completely to stick to their blowpoke theory.
I generally don't believe any expert witnesses who get paid to testify, or work for the state that is prosecuting the case. In this case the state had a blood spatter expert testify and it turned out he had lied about his credentials, falsified evidence and hid exculpatory evidence in 34 other cases, including this one. He was fired by the state a few years after this trial had concluded. But his testimony was crucial in the conviction of Michael Peterson.
The prosecutions case was based mostly on theory and circumstantial evidence. The motive they gave was that Michael Peterson was bi-sexual and his wife found pictures and emails on his computer showing Michael Peterson was having homosexual affairs with escorts. Their theory is she threatened to leave him so he killed her. But they did not present any evidence to back this theory up other than gay porn and emails THEY found on his computer. They offered no proof she found this on his computer. It was just a theory. Then they claimed he beat her with a blow poke, but never produced the murder weapon or explained how he had gotten rid of it. It turns out the blowpoke turned up near the end of the trial and it was in pristine condition, no signs of blood or tissue indicating it had been used in the murder. Again, that was a theory they presented at trial and it turned out to be wrong. So they had no murder weapon or any idea what caused the wounds on Mrs. Peterson's head. They leaned heavily on the shock value of the gay porn and gay affairs Michael Peterson had while he was married. One could argue it was prejudicial and should have been excluded (because it was, especially the way the prosecution presented it) but the judge allowed it into the trial, even bringing gay escorts into the trial to testify about the kinds of sex they had with Michael Peterson.
If you think I am defending Peterson, well, I am to a degree. I do believe there was reasonable doubt in this case. I do believe the jury convicted him, not on evidence, but because he is a weird, unlikeable person, and possibly a sociopath. I also think he had a bad lawyer. I think a good lawyer would have gotten at least a hung jury.
I should mention another weird twist. 18 years earlier, Michael Peterson's friend and neighbor was found dead at the bottom of a staircase while he was living in Germany. It is a startling coincidence and clearly appears relevant to this case. The German police and military police investigated and found no wrongdoing. But still the similarities of the two cases is compelling. In the earlier case there was no motive. No murder weapon. No suspicion until Mrs. Peterson's death.
Did he kill his wife? I think so. Not sure how or why, but he is a sociopath with an explosive temper I think. Reasonable doubt? Yes. I think so. A wife dies and the husband is the first suspect as is foul play. But there still has to be evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt. A theory about motive and a theory about the murder weapon is not enough. The system is designed to let 10 guilty men go free in order to ensure every innocent man does not go to prison. Justice is a search for the truth, not just putting someone in prison because a crime was committed. The prosecution in this case was sloppy, at times dishonest, and low on evidence.
Still, I come back to the owl theory. I simply cannot come up with an explanation for how owl feathers got in her hair. Or how an ex-marine can beat his wife over the head with a blunt object and not create skull or brain contusions. Her daughter refused to allow her mother's body to be exhumed so the wounds could be reexamined to determine if it was an owl attack. We will never know, but imagine if it was an owl attack? What an incredible story this case would be.
The owl theory sounds like the most logical. You have to account for the feathers and the wounds.
