- Joined
- Feb 13, 2016
- Messages
- 116
- Reaction score
- 498
I'm nearly at the end of The Staircase and have done a bit of reading up on the case, which is a fascinating one. I've considered both sides of the argument and can absolutely see why someone would assume Michael Peterson was either guilty or not-guilty, as pretty much all of the 'evidence' is circumstantial and comes down to how you view his character.
On balance - and this may sound weird - I think Peterson is innocent -- or rather, that there was not sufficient evidence to convict him of murder. He's a very weird guy, granted, and I can totally understand why people think he comes across as guilty; in a sense, I agree, but I just don't think he is, and I don't think he should have been convicted. It reminds me a bit of the West Memphis Three; did they do it? Well, maybe, but they were wrongly convicted due to hysteria and presumed guilt.
So, why do I think Peterson should have been found not-guilty?
- He had no clear motive. I don't buy being bisexual as a motive for murder, despite this being a major theme for the prosecution. Even despite Kathleen's death, the majority of her family don't seem to really care about this revelation either.
- What was the murder weapon? It clearly wasn't the blow poke, which is a bizarre choice of murder weapon anyway. Kathleen had no fractures or bruising, which is generally inconsistent with a frenzied melee attack.
- Why, having bludgeoned or otherwise beaten his wife to death, and having viewed the state of the crime scene, would Peterson for a moment think that anyone would buy this as being an accident? Did he really think anyone would believe that a woman falling down the stairs would sustain such injuries and blood loss? I think that someone with Peterson's background would have done a better job, cleaned up, and disposed of the body. If it was a genuine freak accident, however, then none of this would have occurred to him, and he'd simply have phoned 911 (which he did).
- The blood being dry is a (pun intended) red herring; blood dries very quickly, as anyone who has ever cut themselves will attest to. There's no reason to assume that some of the blood wouldn't have dried by the time the emergency services arrived at the scene, and that's even without knowing when Kathleen first started bleeding.
- Top forensic scientists such as Dr. Henry Lee have corroborated the possibility of Peterson's version of events.
- No one who knew Peterson said that he would be capable of such a crime, and by all accounts the Petersons had a happy marriage. With the exception of Kathleen's sister and daughter, the entire family seem to have stuck by Peterson throughout the process. Further, the few negative character assessments of Peterson have been based purely on the assumption that he killed Kathleen, and even Kathleen's sister had not been able to say a bad word about him prior to Kathleen's death, and her original comments about him (before she 'switched sides') had been positive and in defence of him. (Incidentally, I also get the feeling that she's as aggrieved by his homosexual tendencies as by her sister's death.)
- Duane Deaver!
I think it was a freak accident involving meds, wine, and slipping on a staircase (possibly after a nasty bang to the head on part of the stairwell area); I think Kathleen got up, was incredibly groggy, slipped a number of times and cut her head on the lip of several stairs, and was coughing blood up the sides of the walls as this happened.
I am not suggesting Michael Peterson couldn't have killed his wife, simply that I don't think he did. It seems out of character, he lacked a motive, and if he had done it then the story he fabricated is ridiculous. I'll go one further and say I think the first death in Germany was - as was believed at the time - attributed to natural causes.
On balance - and this may sound weird - I think Peterson is innocent -- or rather, that there was not sufficient evidence to convict him of murder. He's a very weird guy, granted, and I can totally understand why people think he comes across as guilty; in a sense, I agree, but I just don't think he is, and I don't think he should have been convicted. It reminds me a bit of the West Memphis Three; did they do it? Well, maybe, but they were wrongly convicted due to hysteria and presumed guilt.
So, why do I think Peterson should have been found not-guilty?
- He had no clear motive. I don't buy being bisexual as a motive for murder, despite this being a major theme for the prosecution. Even despite Kathleen's death, the majority of her family don't seem to really care about this revelation either.
- What was the murder weapon? It clearly wasn't the blow poke, which is a bizarre choice of murder weapon anyway. Kathleen had no fractures or bruising, which is generally inconsistent with a frenzied melee attack.
- Why, having bludgeoned or otherwise beaten his wife to death, and having viewed the state of the crime scene, would Peterson for a moment think that anyone would buy this as being an accident? Did he really think anyone would believe that a woman falling down the stairs would sustain such injuries and blood loss? I think that someone with Peterson's background would have done a better job, cleaned up, and disposed of the body. If it was a genuine freak accident, however, then none of this would have occurred to him, and he'd simply have phoned 911 (which he did).
- The blood being dry is a (pun intended) red herring; blood dries very quickly, as anyone who has ever cut themselves will attest to. There's no reason to assume that some of the blood wouldn't have dried by the time the emergency services arrived at the scene, and that's even without knowing when Kathleen first started bleeding.
- Top forensic scientists such as Dr. Henry Lee have corroborated the possibility of Peterson's version of events.
- No one who knew Peterson said that he would be capable of such a crime, and by all accounts the Petersons had a happy marriage. With the exception of Kathleen's sister and daughter, the entire family seem to have stuck by Peterson throughout the process. Further, the few negative character assessments of Peterson have been based purely on the assumption that he killed Kathleen, and even Kathleen's sister had not been able to say a bad word about him prior to Kathleen's death, and her original comments about him (before she 'switched sides') had been positive and in defence of him. (Incidentally, I also get the feeling that she's as aggrieved by his homosexual tendencies as by her sister's death.)
- Duane Deaver!
I think it was a freak accident involving meds, wine, and slipping on a staircase (possibly after a nasty bang to the head on part of the stairwell area); I think Kathleen got up, was incredibly groggy, slipped a number of times and cut her head on the lip of several stairs, and was coughing blood up the sides of the walls as this happened.
I am not suggesting Michael Peterson couldn't have killed his wife, simply that I don't think he did. It seems out of character, he lacked a motive, and if he had done it then the story he fabricated is ridiculous. I'll go one further and say I think the first death in Germany was - as was believed at the time - attributed to natural causes.
