The Staircase [Netflix] [** Spoilers **]

nicmarie

Hi I was recommended 'The Staircase' as I have finished making a murderer and also the jinx and I loved both! I watched the first 3 episodes of the staircase and I am gripped.. I cant seem to get the fourth anywhere!!! youtube doesnt have it nor does videome or any other stream site.. can anyone help?????

Vex Willems

I watched it on youtube last week, all chapters were together in one video

triggermortis

Torrents are available for it (or so I've heard...)

nicmarie

i think its been removed from Youtube.. I have no clue about torrents so wouldnt know how and where to get them.. i have been searching forthe epast few hours

Slippin Jimmy

Vex Willems wrote: »

I watched it on youtube last week, all chapters were together in one video

I started to watch it myself. I've looked through my history on youtube but it is not showing up. It must have been removed.

Vex Willems

Slippin Jimmy wrote: »

I started to watch it myself. I've looked through my history on youtube but it is not showing up. It must have been removed.

yeah, I'm not seeing it myself now either

stop animal cruelty

Look up the owl theory for the staircase....it'll all make sense.

jayo26

Will do.

retro:electro

stop animal cruelty wrote: »

Look up the owl theory for the staircase....it'll all make sense.

I think that’s one of the most ridiculous theories I’ve ever read.

I think he did it. But not unlike Steven Avery, he didn’t do it in the manner he was being accused of doing it. But I still believe he did it.
However he didn’t get a fair trail and America has a terrible justice system.
It was a weird one for me because I wanted the prosecution to nail him and be admiral; but they were every bit as unlikable as he was.

TomOnBoard

retro:electro wrote: »

I think that’s one of the most ridiculous theories I’ve ever read.

I think he did it. But not unlike Steven Avery, he didn’t do it in the manner he was being accused of doing it. But I still believe he did it.
However he didn’t get a fair trail and America has a terrible justice system.
It was a weird one for me because I wanted the prosecution to nail him and be admiral; but they were every bit as unlikable as he was.

The Owl theory serves a useful purpose. It doesn't pretend to definitively prove the owl dunnit, only to raise enough doubt to undermine a conviction.

stop animal cruelty

retro:electro wrote:

I think that’s one of the most ridiculous theories I’ve ever read.

retro:electro wrote:

I think he did it. But not unlike Steven Avery, he didn’t do it in the manner he was being accused of doing it. But I still believe he did it. However he didn’t get a fair trail and America has a terrible justice system. It was a weird one for me because I wanted the prosecution to nail him and be admiral; but they were every bit as unlikable as he was.

Did u actually watch every episode, and read the full theory? It makes complete and full sense.

retro:electro

Yes of course I have :rolleyes:

But while I think it’s absurd, I will say that the owl theory makes more sense than a fall down the stairs, the fact that she had lacerations and no fractures etc..
I’m not totally 100% disgregafing the theory. But it didn’t fit with the timeline of events of the night. If she was attacked by an owl why does he not know about this. If she was attacked upon entering the house she would have screamed and ran back to him.
If it wasn’t for the bruising and the damage to her cartilage I could maybe see it, but to me they look like defensive wounds from when she was being beaten.
Also by the time paramedics arrived the blood had dried in. She was dead for far longer than Michael stated.

There’s also the fact that emails and pictures were deleted on Michael’s computer that night after Kathleen died, unless the owl did those too.
And however prejudicial it was to introduce the events of Germany into his trial, I just can’t get over the fact that he was the last person to see both women alive. They died similarly. He was leading a double life and got found out.
I don’t think it was pre-meditated though, more a crime of passion.
Anyway, you feel differently. I’m cool with that.

stop animal cruelty

retro:electro wrote:

Yes of course I have

retro:electro wrote:

But while I think it’s absurd, I will say that the owl theory makes more sense than a fall down the stairs, the fact that she had lacerations and no fractures etc.. I’m not totally 100% disgregafing the theory. But it didn’t fit with the timeline of events of the night. If she was attacked by an owl why does he not know about this. If she was attacked upon entering the house she would have screamed and ran back to him. If it wasn’t for the bruising and the damage to her cartilage I could maybe see it, but to me they look like defensive wounds from when she was being beaten. Also by the time paramedics arrived the blood had dried in. She was dead for far longer than Michael stated.

Presumably he does know about it now, because this theory came out not too long ago...ie AFTER he was released.

The owl flew inside, clawed itself onto her head....she runs in panic, possibly upstairs, falls backwards. She was also drinking wine, so could have been pissed.

The lacerations would have been cause by the owl, its claw prints were a similar print to the lacerations. Blood would have poured out, hence all the blood.

Bruises were from falling. Yes she screamed, but u would have seen on the series, that they tested the noise levels, to see if they could be heard outside where husband was standing. They could not be heard.

What's the difference between defence wound's and accidental bruises? If l see a bruise on someone l don't know if it was from being given a belt from a man or horse?!

retro:electro wrote:

There’s also the fact that emails and pictures were deleted on Michael’s computer that night after Kathleen died, unless the owl did those too. And however prejudicial it was to introduce the events of Germany into his trial, I just can’t get over the fact that he was the last person to see both women alive. They died similarly. He was leading a double life and got found out. I don’t think it was pre-meditated though, more a crime of passion. Anyway, you feel differently. I’m cool with that.

Ya you might be right that the owl could have deleted those emails.....but what were they about?! And to who?! Might it have just been a coincidence that he happened to delete emails the same day/night!?

Why would he have killed both wives? He had a good reputation, he kids adored him...ya he was bi...but there was no reason to believe he killed them both and why?!

The microscopic feathers were found intangled in her hair....

A neighbor had to come forward to say he was attacked by one, was left pretty blooded after it, he even lost an eye.

So ya, its not absurd one bit.

retro:electro

stop animal cruelty wrote: »

Why would he have killed both wives?

The first woman wasn’t his wife. Have you even watched it or read anything about it?

stop animal cruelty

retro:electro wrote:

The first woman wasn’t his wife. Have you even watched it or read anything about it?

That's right, I got mixed up...she was the couples friend, who's husband also died....and Michael and his wife adopted their 2 daughters.

mikekerry

The owl theory was interesting .
If having to give a choice whether he did it not I would edge with him doing it.
A few things that push it to the edge of guilt for me are:
1) He has a constant history of lying, whether it be it lying about his war injuries ( which he did not get in the war) to lying about saying that his wife knew about his bi-sexuality which he later admitted she did not.
2) To give the film crew the go ahead to film the series, very, very few people would do this.
3) His almost autobiographical writings detailing committing murders.
4) Where he states in one of the last episodes that once you get used to a lie it almost becomes the truth.
Having said that the initial prosecution place was so flawed and corrupt. The police had him nailed as having done it immediately and never even considered that there could be any other person/owl involved!

Uriel.

I don't know whether he's truly guilty or not, it one sure thing is, I'd hate to be accused of a significant crime in the US. The justice system appears to be nuts.

The whole blow poke thing was just weird. Especially with the revelations near the end of the new episodes (not sure if spoilers allowed here). I don't for one minute believe it was the nurse weapon, if there was a murder.

Uriel.

Lol didn't see the big spoilers note... Thats what I get for redirecting from MAM thread.

TomOnBoard

I would be extremely worried as a defendant in a US trial after seeing how the jury found Peterson guilty at the original trial. There was soo much doubt cast by the defense on the prosecutions case, I dont see how they could have returned a unanimous verdict. Unless the programme editing was totally biased, which is obviously a possibility.

And that judge was awful!

mikekerry

Yes the judge was terrible.
Seemed to be very much on the side of the prosecution.
In the last episode he admitted he would have done things differently ( i.e. not allow certain elements of "evidence" into the trial e.g. the death in Germany)

Pelvis

mikekerry wrote: »

A few things that push it to the edge of guilt for me are:
1) He has a constant history of lying, whether it be it lying about his war injuries ( which he did not get in the war) to lying about saying that his wife knew about his bi-sexuality which he later admitted she did not.
2) To give the film crew the go ahead to film the series, very, very few people would do this.
3) His almost autobiographical writings detailing committing murders.
4) Where he states in one of the last episodes that once you get used to a lie it almost becomes the truth.
Having said that the initial prosecution place was so flawed and corrupt. The police had him nailed as having done it immediately and never even considered that there could be any other person/owl involved!

1. Everyone lies, doesn't make them a murderer
2. I think he did this because he wanted it all public, he was a journalist who had written articles in opposition of local government and even the DA. Plus as someone who worked in the media he probably had connections/knew people who could arrange it quite easily
3. God help Stephen King if he's ever accused of murder
4. See point 1

mikekerry

I think the vast majority of people wouldn't make up lies saying that they picked up their injuries in a war when they didn't and keep that lie going for years. This is not just a "small" lie but it's a pretty big thing to lie about .
He also lied about his wife knowing about his bi-sexuality, why?
Of course none of the above make him a murderer it just raises some doubts about his character and what he is telling as the "truth".
thing is we will most lively never know whether he did it or not.
great documentary though.

Pelvis

Those doubts about his character bears no relevance on whether he is a murderer. They are literally irrelevant. So using them to sway your opinion that he's guilty is silly.

What about his character when taking in his friend's children and raising them as his own?

mikekerry

Of course they are relevant if someone has a history of lying it's relevant especially if it comes out in a court case that the person has a history of lying it's going to affect the jury.
It doesn't make him a murderer, I never said he was it just raises suspicions about what he is and isn't lying about.

lordgoat

Check out Phoebe Judge's Criminal Podcast on this case. It's one episode and makes you think.

mikekerry

do you have a link to the podcast.
thanks

Pelvis

Assume it's this one...

https://thisiscriminal.com/episode-one-animal-instincts-1-31-2014-2/

She doesn't make it easy to find! Especially seeing as it's a known case!!

lordgoat

Pelvis wrote: »

Assume it's this one...

https://thisiscriminal.com/episode-one-animal-instincts-1-31-2014-2/

She doesn't make it easy to find! Especially seeing as it's a known case!!

LoL that Pod is from 2014...

TomOnBoard

Pelvis wrote: »

Those doubts about his character bears no relevance on whether he is a murderer. They are literally irrelevant. So using them to sway your opinion that he's guilty is silly.

What about his character when taking in his friend's children and raising them as his own?

And unfortunately, that's where the US Courts system is so wrong and unjust- prosecutions are almost totally focused on getting a win, not on establishing truth. So, loads of extraneous crap is introduced which has absolutely nothing to do with the facts of the case, in order to con the jury into a guilty verdict through manipulation of their emotions rather than their sense of reason and logic.

In this case, the prosecution had used massive emotional manipulation that had absolutely no relevance to the poor woman's death. For example

1.The Blow-Poke
2.The German death..
3. Brad, the Gigolo.

In the Alford plea hearing, Rudolf told the court that he had established only days before that the BlowPoke that the prosecution said had 'mysteriously disappeared' had actually been found shortly after Kathleen's death. Photos had been taken and subsequently never shared of the two crime techs with the blow-poke in hand. It was tested by them and found not to have any evidentiary value and was replaced by the crime techs in the cellar. This was an egregiously corrupt act on the part of those involved and ought to have been properly investigated. It was a further year before the son found the Blow-Poke. (BTW, it looks like a great yoke. I'm going to get one for the fire in the Winter!)

When it was all over, the Judge said that, if he was to to get a do-over, he probably would not have allowed either the German death or Brad the Gigolo matters to be introduced before the jury as they were not evidentiary and were highly prejudicial to the defence. Enough said!

So, if the Blow Poke had been dealt with properly, the German and Brad elements not introduced, Diever's evidence would have been the only evidence the prosecution could offer. As soon as he was found to have perjured himself in this case, and fcuked up a number of other cases with his arrogant narcissistic incompetence, Peterson would have had to be freed along with the other men who had been wrongly convicted. That would have resulted in Peterson being awarded millions due to the bad faith and evil intent actions of Diever and his team. Instead, the State beat Peterson down and broke him financially, psychologically and destroyed his faith in the system. They kept chiselling away at him with the constancty of threats to try him again and he could not be satisfied they wouldnt fcuk him over a second time- hence the Alford. Thats what the State needed all along to avoid them having to admit culpability in relation to how the case was handled by them. Its a classic case of "You can't beat City Hall", and when City Hall is as corrupt as the system in Durham clearly was, Peterson had no chance.

It wasnt covered much in the programme, but I suspect that Peterson had ruffled feathers in his earlier attempts to run for office in Durham, including Mayor, and as often happens in US politics, he was doomed from the beginning as a result.

Also, Peterson probably spent hundreds of thousands on his defence, and this, coupled with Caitlin getting the bulk of Kathleen's life insurance as well as monies from the sale of the house, wiped him out. Imagine what chance an innocent man with no money would have in that kind of a situation. Noooo chance. Its no wonder so many innocent people are forced into plea deals to avoid jury trials that could end in their deaths by capital punishment. That was the genesis of the Alford plea after all.

A sick system in an country that appears to be becoming ever more sick day by day. Its great that there are programmes being made to cast some light (and I fully acknowledge that they are manipulating viewers as well) on these horrific practices. And this one was among the best I've seen.

TallGlass

After watching it, I'll just cut to this. It really is as simple as this. If I was a juror, I could not say without a doubt he is guilty. There is too much doubt in my mind and lack of any type of solid evidence which leaves no doubt in my mind he done it.

kerplun k

It was a weird one. I think this is a rare case in which two wrongs make a right.
I'm convinced he did it. The coincidence of two women both found dead at the end of the stairs is just too bizarre for it not to be connected. The lacerations on Kathleen Petersons head was not from a fall, but the simple truth here is that the police done such a p1ss poor job of collecting evidence and building a proper case against Mike Peterson, they ended up having to resort to using unethical methods to get the conviction.

Based on what they had, the case shouldn’t have even went to trial, and after it did, the jury shouldn’t have returned with a guilty verdict, but in some weird f**ked up way, I think justice was served. Was it fair? No, Should he have been convicted? No. But, do you think he had something to do with Kathleen’s or Elizabeth Ratliff's deaths?, This is something we will probably never know, but based on everything I heard, I'm more inclined to believe that Mike Peterson is not 100% innocent.

Peterson had no choice and was forced to enter the Alford plea and admit guilt on Kathleen, so in the eyes of the law, he is guilty. He's served 8/9 years in prison, lost his money, his health and his reputation. I wouldn’t be too confident in handing him a life sentence, because I can't fully say he was involved in either murder, but based on what I seen, I think his punishment was just about right, even tho, the path to serving that punishment was wrong.

It was a fantastic documentary and one which highlights the injustice of the American justice system.