|
Post by ellie on Mar 5, 2017 12:08:36 GMT
I would highly recommend the documentary The Staircase. . It's on YouTube and is 9 episodes following the investigation, trial and aftermath of the Kathleen Peterson murder in North Carolina in 2001.
Her husband US Novelist Mike Peterson was arrested for her murder after he claimed she had died from falling down the stairs.
The film crew have access to pretty much everything from the family to the defence and prosecution teams to various expert witnesses as the story unfolds.
It is, quite frankly, riveting with numerous twists & turns. Truth really is stranger than fiction and you get a terrific insight into how prosecution and defence teams operate.
In the the end I was thinking I really hope I never have to be a juror on a trial like that because it is SO hard to come to a definitive decision on guilt or innocence.
|
|
|
Post by MagdaFR on Mar 5, 2017 14:17:09 GMT
Where did you watched it? I searched Kathleen Peterson on google and one of the first results is a reddit thread against the documentary. On The StaircaseI'd vote "not guilty" for almost everybody considering the treatment people receive in prisons. So they'd kick me out from every jury.
|
|
|
Post by ellie on Mar 5, 2017 15:05:54 GMT
It's on YouTube. Just go into search and type "The Staircase." It's really fascinating.
|
|
|
Post by mllemass on Mar 5, 2017 15:17:56 GMT
I'd vote "not guilty" for almost everybody considering the treatment people receive in prisons. So they'd kick me out from every jury. I was asked to show up for jury duty a few years ago, but I didn't end up being selected. It wasn't at all the way they show it on tv or in movies. It was a very long day of moving about 100 of us from one room to another and giving us lots of instructions. When we finally got to the courtroom, the defendant was read the charges against her and asked how she pleaded. If she had said "Guilty", that would have been the end and we would all have gone home. But she said "Not guilty", so the whole process of jury selection began. They took the defendant out of the room, and then the judge gave us the details of the case, including the names of everyone involved (the witnesses, lawyers). Then she asked us if there was anyone who had a conflict or had any other reason they couldn't be on the jury. They made a line and gave her their reasons. She accepted some reasons and not others. Whoever was remaining (including me) was brought to yet another room to wait. When we were brought back into the courtroom, the defendant was back in her box. We were told that because there were so many of us, they would draw 20 names and those 20 would be the first group to be considered. I was number 20. I kept hoping they would have their 12 before getting to me, but they only had 11. I was instructed to step forward and face the two lawyers, then I had to look directly at the defendant while she looked at me. They didn't ask me any questions -they mainly looked down at their papers that I think had my name, age and occupation. The only questions they asked anybody were to people who said they were retired, and they wanted to know what they had done before retirement. I just stood there, and finally the prosecutor said "Yes" but the defence said "No", so the judge said I was excused. On my way out, I heard them saying that they were going to draw another 20 names. That was the extent of my jury experience. (The trial lasted a week, like the judge had predicted, and the woman was found guilty of dangerous driving and a bunch of other charges) A few years earlier, my cousin was on a jury for a trial that lasted almost a year! Of course, he wasn't allowed to talk about it - not even to say which jury he was on - but we knew because that trial made the news every day, all over the country.
|
|
|
Post by coolclearwaters on Mar 5, 2017 15:19:37 GMT
OK. This shows the limitations of these kinds of documentaries. I watched the original trial on CourtTV as it was happening and that guy was sooooo guilty! When you see an actual trial, you realize how much reporting and documentaries leave out and that they always have a point of view that influences their coverage.
I am hardly the hang 'em high type and always lean towards the defense, but the physical evidence in this case just nailed the defendant. In order to sustain the fatal injuries by falling down the stairs, she would have had to bounce down the stairs on the top of her head, rocking her head back and forth on each step. It was ludicrous! He was the only person around, the only person with the access and opportunity to kill her.
Yes, the fact that his first wife (I think they were married) died in the. exact. same. way!!!! was incredibly compelling and creepy, but I would have found him guilty without knowing that.
I saw most of the documentary years ago and, as I recall, film makers also made a huge deal out of the suspicious finding of what might have been the murder weapon, but to me, that was irrelevant, too. Whether he disposed of the murder weapon or the police never found it doesn't change what her injuries tell us about what happened.
Everybody with a camera thinks they're Sherlock!
|
|
|
Post by ellie on Mar 5, 2017 16:31:20 GMT
The other person who died was not his first wife. It was a family friend. She had been suffering from a medical condition which could have accounted for her collapse and fall and subsequent death. The "murder weapon" they found was subsequently ruled out by forensic examination. Plus the DA who led the prosecution was subsequently fired for corrupt practices with regard to his handling of cases including the faking of blood analysis results.
So it really isn't as cut and dried as all that.
The documentary is quite fair I think. You're given lots of conflicting evidence and pretty much left to make up your own mind.
My view is that I tend to agree that he is guilty but I am not 100% sure so I would find it very hard to be on that jury.
|
|
|
Post by coolclearwaters on Mar 5, 2017 19:46:42 GMT
Believe me, it really is that cut and dried. The "weapon" they found was irrelevant. The film makers tried to make a big deal out of it, but it didn't matter. These side issues are distractions, nothing more. The injuries showed that a weapon was used. That's all that really mattered. Whether he managed to dispose of it or it was just never found is irrelevant. Her injuries could not have been caused by a fall. Whether or not the DA was corrupt or had tampered with blood evidence in other cases is also irrelevant in this one, because he didn't tamper with the injuries. She had gashes on her head going from front to back over the curved part of her skull. Whatever caused those gashes had to be flexible enough to bend slightly with the shape of her head. Something completely rigid and stationary, like the edge of a stair simply couldn't have caused them unless her head was rocking back and forth ...and there were several gashes ...so she would have had to hit several steps in this exact way. Forget the preposterous idea that anyone falling down stairs would land on the top of their head. The idea that they would hit more than one stair in this way, without their neck or body folding up is not possible. Someone killed her and unless the one-armed man from The Fugitive was in the neighborhood, the defendant is the one who did it ...unless it was the owls. I could more easily believe that a pack of deranged owls attacked her on the landing/windtunnel, grabbed her by the ankles, and slammed her repeatedly against the stairs (making g sure to rock her back and forth) than I could believe this guy is innocent.
As for the family friend who died, it was certainly a fascinating "coincidence". I don't remember the details, but the similarities with the other death were quite bizarre and I think some friends and family were convinced that he murdered her. Still, though fascinating, it's a distraction. If he had never met the first woman, the evidence was overwhelming that he convicted the second one.
|
|
|
Post by ellie on Mar 5, 2017 20:55:54 GMT
I generally agree with you Coolclearwaters. My gut feeling was that he did it right from the opening scene with the recording of the 911 call. He sounded like someone who was acting distraught rather than somebody who actually was distraught.
But I guess I'm just trying to consider it from all angles as many people have been convicted of crimes they didn't commit even though it seemed they were guilty.
However if I absolutely had to call it I would say guilty.
|
|
|
Post by susanhex1 on Mar 5, 2017 20:56:12 GMT
I remember watching part of the trial on tv. Though his kids believed him. The staircase was the problem, falling that short of a distance causing all the blood. I looked up his life now.
Court tv was popular, i watched the OJ case ( I wouldn't have convicted him, ( didn't believe they proved the case). The Mendendez Bros, and Cayley Anthony. The worse case they showed, the man that kdnapped the little girl and buried her.
|
|
|
Post by queenzod on Mar 5, 2017 21:49:07 GMT
Anyone got any theories on the Jon Benet Ramsey death? That happened here in my town and remains unsolved. Everyone here has a theory.
|
|