conor.

I’ve just finished watching Jean-Xavier De Lestrade’s 8-part documentary series The Staircase, on the murder trial of Michael Peterson and thought it was a fantastically gripping story.

If you’re a fan of docos, I highly recommend it.

I was going to comment about it in the IMDb message boards until I realised everyone on it is insane.

Here are some spolier-laden thoughts:

This is mainly a response to the insane websites that claim Peterson’s guilt and savagely attack Lestrade’s film.

Regardless whether or not Michael Peterson actually killed his wife, the following issues still remain:

1. If it was a pre-meditated killing with the intent being to claim Kathleen’s life insurance money, it is highly unlikely that the police would have believed the staircase story and have the case closed. If there was the inkling that he would have to face prosecution, he would never get the money. The ‘plot’, if it was one, was inherently stupid. That doesn’t seem to fit with who Peterson is.

2. The Ratliff death was not a linked case and should never have been admitted into evidence. Both deaths involved staircases but in the case of Mrs. Ratliff, he was not at the scene at the time of death which, as suggested in the film, could not have been the 11pm timeslot pushed by the prosecution. Also, since the autopsy was performed by the same woman who declared Kathleen’s death a blunt force trauma, there is too close a connection to the prosecution’s team to be impartial or unbiased.

3. The exhumation of Mrs. Ratliff a few weeks before the trial was a publicity stunt pulled by the prosecution and was a disgustingly insensitive move made by the District Attorney, especially moving the body to Durham.

4. Kathleen’s sisters believed Michael Peterson was guilty only after they found out he was bisexual and were thereafter seen in the film trying to infer things from his fiction. They are obviously idiots.

5. Kathleen’s biological daughter swapped sides, like her aunts, after hearing about his secret life. She was thereafter seen supporting the evidence of forensic pathologist, Radisch, ignoring the fact that the defence attorney, David Rudolf, had quite successfully put doubt upon her evidence.

6. On that note, the reason I’d like to believe Peterson is innocent is because out of the entire film, the person outside of the family who seemed the most honest was David Rudolf. As a viewer, the person’s judgement I trusted most in the film was his.

7. Beyond reasonable doubt. There was so much reasonable doubt. It’s actually ridiculous.

8. The jury, as seen in their post-trial interviews, were swayed by the blood evidence of Duande Deaver, who it turned out was giving fradulent evidence.

9. The jury also said in the interview that they didn’t think the crime was pre-meditated, which is a requirement of first-degree murder, of which they convicted Peterson.

10. A juror then defined pre-mediatation as being able to happen in the few minutes or seconds before the attack. This is completely wrong. The jury were not correctly directed (or did not comperend) as to the definition of first-degree murder or ‘beyond reasonable doubt’. That was a disgrace.

11. The assistant disttrict attorney, Freda Black, delivered an appalling closing address that was wholly insensitive and preyed upon social sentiment regarding homosexuality in the bible-belt of the South. Interesting to note as well that her closing address actually dealt in no way with the crime being physically committed and instead tried (and successfully it seems) to convince the jury that being a secretive homosexual is akin to being a murderer or sociopath.

Rant over for the time being.