Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Silky Kisser

The Staircase on Netflix (spoilers)

Recommended Posts

I'm probably way behind with this, but just wondering what people make of this case? 

I haven't finished watching this yet, currently on ep 10, but I'm aware of the end result and how it unfolds. The first few episodes are a bit of a roller-coaster when all the facts start coming out... Really grabs you by the balls. 

Thought I'd do a little reading this morning and came across the 'Owl theory' which at first a laughed at but on reading a little more it does make some sense.

I started off thinking he was innocent, then moved to guilty back I'm back at the start again now and not sure what to believe. 

 

What say you? 

Edited by Silky Kisser

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought he was guilty from the start but got a really shoddy conviction. The woman prosecutor died a few weeks ago, no owls were involved.  The defence lawyer is doing one of those "An evening with" tours over here in a month or so, was thinking about going to the Manchester date but can't really justify it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Im convinced he did it.

Lots of stuff was left out of the program 

https://www.sheknows.com/entertainment/articles/1140058/facts-netflix-the-staircase-left-out

By far the most telling thing is actually the son believed his dad killed her He clearly states that when they found the blow poke, the son asked him if he should "get rid of it" 

Im not buying the owl, a bird that large would have left massive amounts of feathers and shit and piss in a life and death fight. He killed her and faked the fall.

He got off due to the other trail and the douche using false evidence, coupled with the stupid instance than the blow poke was the murder weapon   

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, quote the raven said:

He got off due to the other trail and the douche using false evidence, coupled with the stupid instance than the blow poke was the murder weapon   

 

Yep, such a shit prosecution.  At first I thought they were just phoning it in because it was a slam dunk, but then I thought they were just really fucking shit.

Good point about the owl.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Spent the last day listening to the BBC 'Beyond reasonable doubt' podcast which covers the case. 

Some very good listening and uncovers lots of stuff not mentioned in the doc like strangulation marks and the fact Peterson went out an bought several blow pokes during the trial. 

 

Recommend. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I inadvertently started another thread on this not knowing this one existed. My bad. 

I had heard about the owl theory but never read into it because, as already mentioned, there would have at least been feathers. 

What gets me is he doesn't come across as a cold person. He shows a lot of affection towards his children and I can't accept that someone like that could lie so convincingly about killing his wife. 

It is truly baffling and we'll probably never know what happened. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Steve Justice said:

I inadvertently started another thread on this not knowing this one existed. My bad. 

I had heard about the owl theory but never read into it because, as already mentioned, there would have at least been feathers. 

What gets me is he doesn't come across as a cold person. He shows a lot of affection towards his children and I can't accept that someone like that could lie so convincingly about killing his wife. 

It is truly baffling and we'll probably never know what happened. 

I believe the report said traces of feathers were found in her hair and hands. 

I feel the opposite - to me he didnt seem overly effected by it all. If you found your wife dead at the bottom of the stairs with that much blood everywhere, you wouldn't be fixated on a fall down the stairs as the reason. You'd probably think that someone had attacked her. But no, when he eventually rang the police, he was adamant that she'd fallen without even questioning any other possibility. 

Plus there's other stuff not talked about in the doc like she had strangulation marks around her neck. How he's tried to clean up so much of the blood. His bloody foot print on her body and the fact that she had very little alcohol in her system when he said they'd been drinking for hours. He had poured most of the wine down the sink. 

The police did a poor job, but he did it in my eyes. 

 

Check out the podcast 'Beyond reasonable doubt' it's far less biased than the doc. 

Edited by Silky Kisser

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Been a couple of months since I watched this, so some of the details might be a little hazy, but for what its worth I dont think he did it.
I certainly dont think theres enough evidence to prove that he did it.

It always seemed to me that the prosecutions arguments were entirely based around the jurys emotions, rather than hard evidence (That seems to be the way in a lot of American cases though)

Im aware of the things left out of the documentary - most of them I dont see as being particularly relevant (Like his later realationship with one of the filmmakers) nor incriminating. A lot of it is interesting though, like the fact that his younger son was caught making bombs, and had blown things up at university, either he or the other son was done for drunk driving too - Neither of them seem particularly sympathetic. In fact, Peterson himself doesnt always come across as that much of a nice guy, but that doesnt make him a killer. In fact, having a camera on you all the time for years is inevitably going to catch some 'bad moments'
I was also surprised that there wasnt more in the documentary about the owl theory, rather than a 'dvd extra' at the end.

I honestly thought that the 'reasonable doubt' podcast was utter shit. Although the staircase definetely has a biased lean towards Peterson, the podcast is far too much in the other direction. The host comes across quite unprofessional, unable to hide his beliefs - particularly in the last episode in front of an audience, where he called on the audience to tell someone who believed the owl theory why they were 'talking rubbish'
Aphrodite Jones being one of the main interviews came across really badly - again seemingly everything was based on emotion rather than fact. Might as well have had Nancy Grace in there. Lets not forget that Jones sold film rights about this case (Have to say that film wasnt as bad as I expected either - Treat Williams was pretty good in it).
The victims sister (Cant recall her name) also came across very false. I have no doubt that she is in pain over the events, but everything she says comes across highly scripted and emotional, with nothing behind it. She goes on about how the blowpoke would never have been missing from the fireplace, despite videos showing exactly that. How arrogant do you have to be to suggest that your gift would alsways be centre stage in someones house. She also moans about the documentary crew being with Peterson, depite spending time with them herself. Far too much time was given to her in the podcast

Regarding the point above that with the owl theory - there should be feathers, piss and shit everywhere - thats not the suggestion about what happened. The theory is that she was out the back dealing with christmas decorations or suchlike, annd this big owl swooped down and grabbed her head, possibly thinking that one of the decorations was a real animal. After that it flew off. She possibly did manage to grab at it while it scratched her head as feathers were found in her hand. After that, she supposedly stumbled into the house, trying to go upstairs (Possibly to see how bad the wound was) and either slipped on the stairs, or fainted, cracking her head against the back wall while she did so.
It was never suggested that the bird was IN the house, nor that it hung around for long outside
I know that on the surface, the idea about an owl seems far fetched, but when you actually look at the theory - it does generally seem to all tie in. There were owls in the woods behind the house, and that type of owl has made such attcks before (In that area even, I believe)

Apologies about the wall of text here. Just that when you watch the whole thing and podcast, thats a lot of material.
I totally get why many think he is guilty - I just dont see that the evidence supports it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wait so,,,,,,HE was by the pool? He states as much. She went in and he didnt follow. They even tested if he could have heard her from inside.

He didnt see his wife get mauled by a fucking owl? or hear it? She decided not to scream for his help instead thought fuck it...i could scream for help and wait...but i much better thing to do is go indoors...and climb some stairs.

She got that stuff on her hair and hands by sitting on the chairs around the pool prior to him murdering her IMO. 

If a fucking owl attacks me and messes me up that badly im probably not going to no sell it and carry on like nothing happened. Also if the owl attack took place outside....where is all the blood drips? 

I still stand by his own son thought he did it thats all the proof i need. 

 

 

 

Edited by quote the raven

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, quote the raven said:

I still stand by his own son thought he did it thats all the proof i need. 

 

 

 

And this is why I'd never want to be tried by a jury.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

His own dam son the one standing by him the whole documentary "my dad didnt do it " ect.....Finds the blow poke and asks him if he should "get rid of it" That reaction is odd in the extreme. 

I would guess he knew his dad had killed his mum and should his dad have told him to lose it......he would have done just that no questions asked. 

As that was never shown to the jury it would never have affected the verdict.

 

Edited by quote the raven

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How does his son asking if he should get rid of the blowpoke make him think his dad is guilty? Yes it's an odd request, but he could have said it for many reasons. He could have been thinking it was planted by the police, especially as no one had seen it for a few years. He could also have said it jokingly. At various points in the series they all make light hearted jokes about their dad being a killer. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Listen to it again he talks to his own lawyer and says ‚ÄúI need to say this carefully but he asked if I wanted it to disappear, I said no‚Ä̬†

Possibly maybe police planted could be an excuse, I still take it as Dad murdered mum... shit the weapon want me to get rid? 

Edited by quote the raven

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hence IMO the dad not asking the son to remove it.....The lad clearly wasn't sure hence asked him if he should ditch it.

So that says to me that the kid must have assumed/knew that dad did it, despite the fact he stood fast and protested his innocents all the way though,

He knew he didnt use it and it was one of the major things that could be used to get him off. The son saw it as a possible murder weapon and he should bin it to save him 

Edited by quote the raven

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×