You have absolutely no grounds to be forming an opinion based solely on the docuseries, which is heavily edited by Peterson's then lover and is only filmed from the defenses point of view.

You can easily view the entire trial by heading to the CourtTV website and you will find the trial in their archive section.

Watch the entire trial then come and tell me he's innocent. It is pure hubris and arrogance to be so dogmatic if you haven't even bothered to watch the full trial!

I estimate that less than 5% in the innocent camp have actually watched the full trial.

Anyone know where I can find the original edit of the documentary? Not the one from Netflix. I heard there are extra parts that the Netflix edit left out

Hi! I was wondering anyone knew if/where any footage of the bond hearing is? In the documentary they only showed a small clip like Todd getting in trouble with the judge. I kinda want to see how he was acting to get in trouble like that.

But at least in the docu series it appeared to be there was no physical evidence that would absolutely with 100% certainty prove that Mike did such crime.

I am not saying i am sure he didn’t do but there was just nothing for us to convict him. But Jury seemed very confident that he was guilty.

Any thoughts?

This documentary has been such a roller coaster. I am an avid watcher to true crimes and before you all come at me, I am not claiming MP is guilty or innocent because I have just watched the documentary and done no research.

My first impression when MP and everyone else described their relationship was that no way he did it. Then I saw the crime scene and I could not believe that the defense really went with the accident defense. I thought this would be an intruder type situation because no way there would be so much blood everywhere after a fall.

The family’s support really tipped me towards MP and the fact that she was drunk could definitely attribute to you losing your sense of balance (according to to the documentary atleast)

I also could not find a motive?? Why would he do this? Why was the Ratliff death brought up? The Deaver situation too… all just seemed like confirmation bias.

I live in Germany and trust me their justice system is not flawed as the US. Not to that degree atleast and they would not let it go that easily if it was a homicide.

Do I believe it was an accident? Probably not Is MP guilty BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT? I don’t think so.

There is ALOT of mishandling of evidence and corruption at play here from prosecution and it is their burden to probe MP guilty beyond any doubts.

I know most of you think MP is guilty and I want to believe that too. Can someone give me the best resources to look into and actually learn about the other side? The Staircase seemed very one sided

-could KP have had a medical condition that causes greater than the average person’s bleeding

-why didn’t the prosecution or defense (depending on who it’s gonna be more beneficial to) compare KP’s fall to other falls under the same circumstances. This would be more fact based than relying on the police and one doctor just saying, “in my opinion, this looks like too much blood for a fall.” Quick google search will show that falling down the stairs is the 2nd leading cause of accidental deaths in the US.

-if prosecutors are correct about the “their relationship was actually not good, MP is lying” theory, why did they not find anyone (not even KPs sisters and daughter) that could testify against their relationship. KP had a good relationship, it seems, with her family, and I would imagine she would share any gripes she had with MP with her sisters

-didn’t the whole family find it awkward having cameras in their faces during such emotional times, especially early on in the case. They all seemed unbothered

• how in the world did the judge allow the blow poke evidence? It’s like prosecution pulled that one out of thin air.

I’m about halfway through the documentary but I know how the case itself ended. What’s got me puzzled is why the prosecution went with some silly blow poke theory when they don’t have an actual weapon instead of saying MP used the stairs themselves as a weapon. It’s much more believable to me based on the blood patterns that if he did beat her he was banging her head against the stairs, the molding, etc.

Why all the DA evidences, witnesses were so biased toward MP for no reason?

1. Because he’s bisexual so he killed her.

2.He spent all his money to bailed himself out and to defend his freedom = financial motive.

3. I felt like witnesses are just witch hunting him. Nothing they said can be proven imo.

4. Germany doctor said it natural caused and the same examiner in the state said it murder. So who’s right?

5. Foot print? Where the proof?

6. They fixated on he murdered his wife from the start w/o even consider any alternative theory whatsoever.

Also Idk why I hate the DA smile, smirk it’s so annoying and punchable 😂

I have become sort of obsessed with this doc, it was insane and I just feel like Michael talks around every single question / difficulty thrust upon him. he just is guilty, its written all over his face. It is eery how non emotional he gets when his daughters talk about their mom. it just doesn't make sense, all of it. I was wondering if there have been any updates since it came out?

I do not believe that this man is guilty. I started with feeling he was - I mean two women with the same manner of death - same guy - what would you think? However, the line is 'Innocent until proven guilty'. So here are my thoughts-

1. The presumed victim's sister and daughter need a therapy session. In the end, I feel strongly that the daughter and sister were 'witch-hunting' this man - at the behest of the state.

2. The daughter and sisters never knew from Kathlene's mouth (as long as she was alive) that she was not happy with her marriage, her husband had a precise sexuality, and he was after her money.

3. How did the prosecution say for certain that it was her husband who offed her when the DNA wasn't tested and their 'murder weapon' was always in the house, and they never got hold of it?

I just binge watched most of the episodes over the weekend. Anyone else disturbed by the amount of laughing that occurs over the case....either by Michael, the attorneys, the expert witnesses, etc. A woman lost her life very tragically and they're having a good laugh. Seems odd but, then again, maybe it's a coping mechanism?

I’m doing my best to cover The Staircase in a 5-minute presentation for a class on journalistic ethics. I’ve known about this case for years, but I forgot how much goddamn evidence there is. Here’s what I will definitely discuss:

• MP’s relationship with a documentary crew member (editor?)

• MP’s affairs with men and the media sensationalism around it

What other case aspects, pieces of evidence, or ethical dilemmas are most important in order to understand the case?

(I’m sure five minutes isn’t enough time; I’ve already locked in my topic, though, so I’ll cover what I can.)

This is the logic MP defenders are using. Since he was gay it's homophobic to focus on MP's constant infidelities or question the state of their marriage. It's about as logical as believing an owl did it.

Throughout these episodes the prosecution team as well as the media kept saying “He’s bisexual and because of that they absolutely weren’t in a happy loving relationship”. This bothers me because who the hell are they to know what in someone’s relationship constitutes a happy relationship? Many people have happy loving relationships with partners on the side, it’s not my choice but I’m not going to sit here and presume to know what made them happy and what didn’t in their relationship. That is all.

There are a few different places you can find the crime scene photos online. Here's one reddit post with photos (warning graphic)

https://www.reddit.com/r/TheStaircase/comments/gvd7pl/a_composite_photo_i_cobbled_together_of_the_crime/

I'm not sure I've heard anyone bring this up but in photos, her waist appears to be absolutely saturated with blood. If she was bleeding primarily from her head, how did this happen?

EDIT: Crime scene not autopsy photos..typo.

Just finished the documentary I was hooked from the beginning. I thought he was guilty at first but then I changed my mind. My biggest question is, if it was a 2 foot barred owl, where the hell did it go? If it attacked her outside wouldn't mp have heard the scream? Wouldn't there by blood outside? If it followed her into the house how did it let itself out?? Makes zero sense. Please enlighten me

ok so I just finished the Netflix series and I was left with a major question - if MP called 911 at 2:40am when he found her body in a panic, what time did she go inside? it would have to have been enough time earlier that the blood had time to dry. and what was he doing out by the pool at that hour just chillin? did anyone ask that? what am I missing here

The prosecution needed to prove two things. 

1. They first needed to prove it wasn’t an accident and was in fact murder. 
2. They also needed to prove that if it was murder that it was Michael who committed the murder.  After all, it might have been Todd or someone else right?

I feel the prosecution failed on both tasks. They failed to truly prove it was a murder. And if we grant them that it was a murder, they also failed to prove it was Michael Peterson that committed the murder.

Consider for a moment, a parallel version of the events of the Staircase where Michael Peterson walked in to find his wife at the bottom of the staircase but when the autopsy is done, it’s discovered there are bullets lodged in her head. In this parallel version, it now becomes unquestionable that she was murdered.  

The investigation and subsequent trial would have focused on proving WHO committed the murder and if Michael was the one behind the gun, rather than if it was a murder or accident.  To prove Peterson guilty they would likely  have needed to find the gun and find evidence he fired the gun. Somehow the prosecution pulled a switch where they didn’t need to prove Peterson committed it but rather just that it was more likely murder than an accident.

It’s interesting that the ambiguity about whether it was an accident or a murder somehow ended up hurting Peterson rather than helping him.  

The prosecution somehow tasked the defendant with being in a position of having to prove that it was an accident (or not a murder) which would be literally impossible.  The burden of proof should have been on the state.

IMHO, it’s truly a mystery what happened.  Peterson’s circumstances are suspicious for sure.  But it seems there was never enough evidence to convict him and certainly there was reasonable doubt that he may have been innocent.

Disgusted by the behavior of Michael in the court room. The singing while smiling. Pausing before fake tears. Extra blinking before trying to cry. He's literally an actor playing a role... it's fkn GROSS. then to write books and profit... i'm disappointed to hear he's alive and living his life. I feel sorry for Todd. I believe Todd caught his father or knows his father did it. this is sad and it's sad they aired this. He's a POS. he doesn't deserve air time.

View Poll

I’m writing my thesis about the series and the effects of the media on public opinion. I was hoping to get some of your opinions on this. Especially how the series changed your opinion on the justice system, his guilt, and how you view the trial itself.

Ive seen some of you comment on other posts from the area and following the case at the time. Love to hear from you too.

To give some points: I noticed throughout my research that the media (at the time) was really framing Michael as guilty, something you also see happening in the docuseries. But on the other hand, a lot of the trial itself is being left out. The most logical reason is to save time for what’s ‘important’, yet the producers seem to push a certain narrative. I’m hoping to find out if this worked, or that all of us here can see past that.

I’ve been reading other posts as well, but I’d like to have some more specific answers in one place! Thanks

Edit: I mean the documentary! Not the HBO series, sorry

I’ve only send the documentary once on Netflix and just finished it. I’m new to the information of this case, so I’ve been doing some research to try to fill in gaps, but maybe people here can help?

I’m confused, because from the beginning of the show, we hear all about blood spatter, the 911 call, etc. But they waited until episode 13, and MP’s plea hearing to include the statement from the prosecutor about broken cartilage near her carotid artery that was consistent with strangulation? Was this was mentioned in the original trial? Because I feel that it could be a strong indication of his guilt. I’m really on the fence either way, but the more I learn, the more I sway towards guilty.

I’ve also seen quite a bit of evidence that was never mentioned in the documentary, such as feathers being found on her person? Does anyone know where I can find more info about the condition she was found in, outside of this documentary?

I think this is the first true crime case I’ve seen in a long time that made me truly question whether the suspect was guilty or not. TIA.

He was literally running for city council. the cops found a condom in the place right after they came to see kathleen dead. If Kathleen had seen that condom found anything that show he was bi, got mad and threatened to go public, that would be clear motive for him to kill her to save his reputation.

Curious, do you think he would be found guilty or not guilty at a new trial?

I think about this often and am not sure what I would do in Michael’s situation. I would love to hear everyone’s thoughts! Full disclosure: I think Michael murdered Kathleen.